Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Health Authorities

Mr. Win Griffiths:: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the chairmen of health authorities in Wales.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairmen of health authorities in Wales; and what matters he intends to discuss with them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The date and agenda for the next meeting with district health authority chairmen have not yet been determined.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister believe that he should call a meeting urgently with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities and with Mid Glamorgan in particular, because there is a serious funding crisis in the Health Service? In Mid Glamorgan the emergency ambulance service for days and afternoons has been reduced from 19 to 14 crews. Is he aware that phase 2 of the Princess of Wales hospital, which it was promised would start in the mid-1980s, has now disappeared completely off the 10-year programme? Is he aware that consultants regard that as completely unacceptable and that they are dismayed at what is happening? Will the Minister find desperately needed funds for all health authorities in the country?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and others must face the fact that increased funding in the Health Service must cover increasing demands which may occasionally outstrip the economy and our capacity, or that of any Government, to deliver. Revenue funding of Mid Glamorgan has risen in real terms by 34 per cent. since the Government came to power. Its capital funding will rise by 12 per cent. this year. That is a major rise. We are giving special attention to the proposed new hospital for Taff Ely and Rhondda at Ynys-y-plwm. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the spanking new Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend. We have not overlooked Mid Glamorgan by any margin.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay at yet another hospital closure, this time the cottage hospital in Caernarfon, which will leave the town without any casualty unit? Will he give an assurance that that closure will not go ahead until all the conditions laid

down by the Secretary of State have been met and local doctors have agreed to casualty cover? Does he accept the statement by the health authority that the closure is the direct consequence of underfunding by the Welsh Office of health services in Gwynedd?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman's concern about that hospital is well known. However, as he knows, his health authority has been one of the best funded in the whole of Wales. He will also be aware that in medical terms the provision of Ysbyty Gwynnedd at Bangor is the most superior that could be provided in the county. We expect the terms and conditions under which Caernarfon cottage hospital will be closed to be observed.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister realise that one need only travel to each part of Wales to recognise that the Health Service is suffering from underfunding under his stewardship? Every part of Wales is suffering, and his percentage figures are nonsense. They do not match the increase in Health Service costs. Does he accept that Opposition Members are appalled that he has not fixed a date for a meeting with the chairmen of the health authorities? He has an obligation to tell them how to manage with the completely inadequate funds that he is providing which are resulting in the decay of the fabric of the Health Service throughout Wales.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman gets extraordinarily worked up. The health authority chairmen can and do see Ministers when they want to. We are always available to them and, as hon. Members will know, to other people in Wales, be they local authorities or Members of Parliament. We are an extremely open Administration in that respect. The hon. Gentleman will also understand that a Health Service which is treating about 275,000 more people every year in hospital, which has cut the perinatal death rate to below that in England to one of the best in Europe, and which is providing renal dialysis to one of the best standards in Europe—from being the worst when we came to power in 1979—is not a Health Service which is failing the people of Wales.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the Welsh counties towards implementing the proposals for the local management of schools.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Schemes for the local management of schools have been formally approved for each of the local education authorities in Wales, and they came into force on 1 April.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister accept that LMS is causing a complete shambles in schools, especially in relation to their staffing? In my constituency alone, 11 teachers in comprehensive schools are being made redundant and there is underfunding of £120,000, despite the best efforts of the education authority to put that right. That is affecting the quality of children's education. We are not really talking about LMS: we are talking about a hell of a mess.

Mr. Roberts: All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that his local education authority—Powys—takes a very different view from the one that he is advancing, since it is


proposing to phase in delegation to all secondary and primary schools with more than 100 pupils on their rolls by 1 April 1991; it does not have to do so until 1993. There is a clear commitment to extending delegation in Powys to all schools covered by the scheme in due course.

Mr. Raffan: Although the vast majority of head teachers in my constituency welcome the introduction of LMS, some are seriously concerned about the effect of pupil-led funding on schools' ability to pay experienced staff. Can my hon. Friend reassure them that they will not be forced to dispense with experienced staff to keep costs down?

Mr. Roberts: It is for the local managers of schools to decide on their staffing. I know that this is causing some concern, but the scheme of local management is bound to involve payment of average teacher costs by local education authorities, and sometimes an actual charge can be different.

South Glamorgan Health Authority

Mr. John P. Smith:: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority; and what he discussed.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman of South Glamorgan district health authority in November 1989, when the financial position of district health authorities was discussed.

Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority, will he draw to his attention the fact that the proposed cuts in South Glamorgan health services as a result of the alleged £7 million overspend will result in the immediate closure of two hospitals in Barry—the Neale Kent and the Amy Evans—with the displacement of up to 20,000 out-patients, who will then have to travel long distances to get treatment? Will he therefore impress on the chairman that no hospital should be shut until a new neighbourhood hospital is built?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that these proposals are out to consultation at the moment which may result in their eventual appearance before my right hon. Friend for decision. So I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with his initiative for increasing the numbers of heart operations in Cardiff; and what further steps might he contemplate taking?

Mr. Grist: Following the report of the Royal College of Physicians on cardiac surgery it was decided that the number of operations should rise to about 1,200. University hospital provided about 630 in the past year. It is busy erecting the paediatric cardiac unit, which will be opened this September. We will then go out to consultation to determine where the remaining 400—over and above the 800 that University hospital, Wales is pledged to carry out—of the 1,200 should go. We await—

Mr. Win Griffiths: Bridgend.

Mr. Grist: There we are. Hon. Members are already making bids from sedentary positions.

Mr. Morgan: Much as we should like to end the last Welsh Questions of the present Secretary of State with good will, before he finally presses the pilot ejector-seat button, may I draw to his attention and to that of his fellow Ministers the extraordinary situation that has arisen in South Glamorgan health authority, which is reviving the proposal to close the orthopaedic ward at the Prince of Wales hospital by stealth, without making any announcement? It is hiding the proposal away on page 17 of the consultative document on the proposed closure of the Glan Ely geriatric hospital. It will then be moved into the children's ward in Rhydlafar, which is the only specialist orthopaedic ward in Wales. Will the Minister comment on the dubious morality of sneaking in the closure in this way?

Mr. Grist: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that it was contained in the proposals that were made public. Therefore, it was hardly being smuggled through. Nevertheless, if it represents a major change in the provision and use of Health Service facilities it is, of course, open to exactly the same form of consultation and objection as any other proposal.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the fact that South Glamorgan health authority has a £7·2 million deficit makes nonsense of the consultations that he described? As the Minister is responsible, he should make some comment about the way in which services are deteriorating. There is great concern at the moment about the loss of school nurses through unilateral decision-making, but it is all due to the underfunding of the health authority. Does he recognise that my anger and the anger of my colleagues and of the people of Wales is well justified because he is neglecting the Health Service not only in South Glamorgan but throughout Wales?

Mr. Grist: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the capital provision for South Glamorgan is rising this year by 122 per cent? Does he recognise that the new Llandough obstetric unit in South Glamorgan, which cost about £8 million and has just been opened, is the biggest unit to be opened since the University hospital, Wales? I do not think that that is overlooking South Glamorgan.

Housing

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses for rent were built in 1989 in districts in Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys.

Mr. Grist: About 675 new homes were provided for rent during 1989 through public resources.

Mr. Carlile: Does the Minister agree that that is an abominably low figure? Does he share the experience of most Welsh Members of young people coming into their surgeries week after week who are unable to find anywhere to rent? Does he agree that that is because of the Government's starved housing policies for Wales?

Mr. Grist: The housing expenditure of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own council last year was about 74 per cent. higher than its spending in the preceding year. That is somewhat dubious starving. We have increased the provision for Housing for Wales to over £100 million. We increased its provision by 20 per cent. last year and by 19 per cent. the year before. We expect that, with private funding and local authorities joining in with finance, about


£140 million will be available for housing provision. That will result in more than 3,000 new houses. That is not starving the housing of Wales.

Mr. Anderson: Rather than trying to delude the House by quoting small percentage increases on low bases, should not the Minister look honestly at the almost total collapse of public provision for housing in Wales over the past decade from its previous high level? He should also look at the resulting social effects in terms of homelessness and the agony suffered by the young people whom the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) described.

Mr. Grist: We are giving money through the housing associations via Housing for Wales precisely because we see the need for housing in the difficult areas that the hon. Gentleman described where social provision is required. But we believe that most people in Wales, as has been proved, prefer to own their own houses. We are doing our best to make that possible for every citizen. I recommend the latest moves in mid-Wales with flexi-housing. Meanwhile, we have increased home ownership in Wales from about 59 per cent. to over 70 per cent. That is what the people of Wales want, where they can get it.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that the sum he has mentioned for Housing for Wales, Tai Cymru, is wholly derisory? It represents an average of only 30 new houses a year for each district in Wales. Does he accept that the Government, and especially the Welsh Office, are extremely anxious to avoid letting local authorities deal with the problems of housing? Does he also accept that the housing crisis in Wales is severe, with 70,000 people on housing waiting lists? Does he accept that, even on his own figures, 7,000 people are homeless?

Mr. Grist: I certainly accept that there are difficulties in housing. I do not deny that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman is a former councillor of some note and if he really believes in waiting lists, he is misleading his colleagues.

Mr. John Marshall: How many empty council houses are there in Wales? Is not a major cause of homelessness in the United Kingdom the huge stock of empty council houses owned by Labour councils?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I acquit most Welsh councils of that behaviour. Nevertheless, throughout the United Kingdom as a whole, the number of empty homes would cope with the number of homeless several times over.

Hernia Operations

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which hospital in Wales has the longest waiting period for hernia operations; which has the shortest waiting period for hernia operations; and if he will specify the average number of waiting days for each of them.

Mr. Grist: Information about numbers of patients on waiting lists for individual operations is not collected centrally.

Mr. Wardell: It is not surprising that the figures for those operations are not collected centrally. If they were, they would deeply embarrass the Government. Will the Minister examine how such figures can be collected?

Tremendous improvements would occur in the quality of people's lives if they did not have to wait so long for their hernias, varicose vein and hip replacement operations.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we have established treatment centres. One, in Bridgend, treats hernia and varicose veins, and one in Cardiff, at Rhydlafar—what is it that we are doing there? I cannot remember; it does not matter. Treatment centres are aimed at the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We are introducing information technology in the Health Service to find out the figures on operations. I agree that it is extraordinary that such figures are not available now, but that is why we are spending a good deal of time, money and effort getting technology in our hospitals.

Welsh Language Board

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Language Board; and what was discussed.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Welsh Language Board on 4 April. Among other matters, they discussed making arrangements for the board to meet my right hon. Friend's successor as Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister recall the assurance that was given by the Secretary of State at the Newport Eisteddfod 18 months ago that there would be legislation for the Welsh language? As the Welsh Language Board published, many months ago, a draft Bill which had overwhelming support from the majority of people in Wales, when will the Government desist from their time-wasting tactics and announce a Welsh Language Bill this year?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap into which many other people in Wales fall, of simply demanding that there should be a Welsh Language Act without being clear about what should go into it. He knows only too well that we are looking constructively at the board's proposals. However, there is not complete agreement, even on the board's proposals. Today's Western Mail reports the Welsh Consumer Council as being critical of it. Others want a more comprehensive Bill, and so on.

Mr. Barry Jones: Excuses.

Mr. Roberts: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to say "excuses" when we have done a great deal for the Welsh language, including passing the Education Reform Act 1988 which is of tremendous importance to the future of the Welsh language. This year, we are spending some £5·9 million on supporting Welsh language organisations. That is a record figure—34 per cent. up on last year.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When will my hon. Friend announce his decision on the applications by schools in south and mid-Pembrokeshire and other parts of Wales for exemption from compulsory Welsh in the national curriculum?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will know that the consultation period on our proposals for exemption ended


on 6 April. We had about 100 responses, half of which were from his constituency. We shall consider the results of that consultation and make our decision in due course.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the Labour authorities of the south Wales valley conmmunities for their enormous support of the Welsh language over the years? Will he also take into account the fact that, in this Thursday's local government elections, in the 15 wards in the Rhondda valley there is not one Conservative candidate? Will the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would be in order if all the authorities spoke Welsh and if it had something to do with the Welsh language.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that not one Conservative candidate is standing in the local elections in the Rhondda? Therefore, there is no one to defend the Conservative party's record on the Welsh language and, especially, the Secretary of State's valleys initiative. What advice will he give to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, the next Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that the Conservative party's case can be made in the south Wales valleys?

Mr. Roberts: I am ever ready to pay tribute to all local authorities in Wales for their contribution to the promotion of the Welsh language. I take advantage of this opportunity to draw the attention of some of them, including some Labour-controlled authorities, to the public sector guidelines issued by the Welsh Language Board. Not all local authorities in Wales have paid due respect to those guidelines, and I wish sincerely that they would.

Mr. Stanbrook: Should not we be encouraging unity in the British nation by promoting its common language rather than encouraging the separatist tendencies inherent in minority languages?

Mr. Roberts: I assure my hon. Friend that all of us who are Welsh speakers are as loyal to the Crown and to the institutions of this country as is anyone else. We are all English speakers, too, and we take every opportunity to promote the English language as well as the Welsh language. I remind my hon. Friend that Welsh was probably spoken in Britain at an earlier stage than English.

British Coal

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to meet, in the near future, the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I met the chairman of British Coal on 23 April.

Mr. Davies: Before the Secretary of State, or perhaps his successor, next meets the chairman, will the Welsh Office study the effect on the coal industry of the use of natural gas for electricity generation? If the present rush towards natural gas continues, it will mean the end of what is left of the coal industry. That will lead to the disruption of huge parts of the power station generation industry and

the creation of a near-monopoly for British Gas. Are the Government concerned about this, or are we witnessing another lamentable exercise in British short-termism?

Mr. Walker: All Governments examine the best and most cost-effective fuels to use, and there is considerable pressure from all parties, including the Labour party, to examine the environmental impact of various fuels. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that any Government of any description must consider carefully a range of factors, including cost-effectiveness and the effect on communities, jobs and the environment. I think that that should be done.

Mr. Coleman: May I urge the Secretary of State to meet the chairman of British Coal urgently? Will he raise with him the proposed closure of Blaenant colliery in my constituency? If it is closed, hundreds of jobs will be destroyed and millions of tonnes of best anthracite coal will be left under the ground. Those are two assets of prime importance to Britain.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the chairman and the regional managers will examine carefully any closure proposal. There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a proper procedure. He knows, too, that pit closures have confronted all Governments. Since 1965, there have been 96 closures, 61 under Labour Governments and 35 under Conservative Governments.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend find out from the chairman of British Coal the current position regarding the opencast executive's proposed 10-year programme for the county of Clwyd? Will he also make him aware of the widespread local concern that that programme has been discussed confidentially with Clwyd county council but has not yet been made public, even though British Coal said that it would be 10 months ago?

Mr. Walker: I can certainly convey my hon. Friend's views about the programme not being made public. Discussion may well have taken place with the local authority—which has, of course, powers over planning.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that Cynon Valley still has the highest male unemployment rate in Wales, which is exactly the same position as when he took over as Secretary of State? Does he accept that he has presided over pit closures in the constituency that have led to the present problem? Is he aware that the intended closure of the furnacite plant and the loss of many more jobs in the constituency will add to the problem? Will he tell us, without bluster, precisely what he intends to do to bring jobs, as a matter of urgency, into Cynon Valley?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady, in the careful wording of her question, failed to mention the large reduction in unemployment in Cynon Valley during the three years that I have been Secretary of State. Although Cynon Valley might still have the worst male unemployment rate, it is now at a far lower level despite the pit closures that have taken place under all Governments. I am grateful for the nice comments that have been made to me and expressed in letters from people in the hon. Lady's constituency about the new industries, new firms, derelict land clearance and high investment that have been introduced during the past three years.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman heed carefully the words of the Blacnant miners' leader, Mr. Bowen, who said that west Glamorgan could ill afford the loss of hundreds of well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs? Is he aware that British Coal's target appears to be designed to make it impossible for pits to pay their way? Will he think hard about the fact that in the glossy valleys programme no reference is made to the loss of six pits and 3,500 jobs? We now wonder what the future of the south Wales coalfield will be should Blaenant close.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must rejoice in the fact that although I have had to sustain a series of coal pit closures in the valleys since the valleys initiative, unemployment in Wales has gone down faster than in the remainder of the United Kingdom and in the valleys it has gone down even faster than in the remainder of Wales. There is no doubt that, desite the pit closures, there has been a fast-improving position in the valleys. I am also pleased to say that there is now a procedure through which any intended pit closure must go, which is much better than the procedure in operation when 61 pits were closed under Labour Governments.

National Rivers Authority

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to meet the chairman of the NRA's Welsh region.

Dr. Howells: Given the widespread concern in Wales about the filthy state of the river banks, and given the Government's declared interest in cleaning up the environment, will the Secretary of State show his confidence in the work of the NRA by taking a running jump into the River Taff, which flows through my constituency?

Mr. Grist: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is complaining about water quality or litter, both of which he has complained about from time to time. On litter, various proposals have been made to try to arrive at a just solution on exactly who will pick it up. On the quality of the water, the report in 1984 gave Wales a clean bill of health—other than one small tributary of the Rhymney, all rivers in Wales came in classes 1 or 2. The latest examination by the NRA, which will be completed this year with the results being available next year, will provide a more up-to-date position.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of the NRA the possibility of that authority assuming sole responsibility for sea defences? Is my hon. Friend aware that added to the anxieties of my Towyn constituents—who have been so disastrously invaded by the sea—is the concern that responsibility for sea defences is divided between four authorities? That is not reassuring.

Mr. Grist: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's remarks, which we shall consider in the light of the recent flooding disaster in north Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, will they pay special attention to a problem that has arisen in Rhymney, where the south of England company Euromet has dumped thousands of drums of toxic waste close to the banks of the River Rhymney, near a school and major road? Will the Minister convey to the NRA's chairman that the whole of Rhymney deeply objects to such dumping?

Mr. Grist: I imagine that the local council and planning authority have some powers in the circumstance that the hon. Gentleman describes. If any toxic waste entered the water, the NRA could prosecute if it felt that that was the right action to take.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister should be able to tell the National Rivers Authority who is responsible for the sea wall that was breached, be it British Rail or the local authorities. He should study carefully the grave psychological damage as well as the financial damage and destruction of property that followed the flooding in Clwyd. If the Welsh Office can find £70,000 for new typists' chairs, surely the Government can find £70,000 for each of the three borough authorities concerned and for Clwyd county council, to cope with the consequences of the flooding. Ministers should show more understanding and compassion, and should take urgent action to help the 1,000 very worried people who are still homeless in north Wales.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the extraordinary settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State managed to arrange, whereby the Bellwin rules apply to 85 per cent. of eligible expenditure. Colwyn, for example, is likely to receive more than £1 million as a consequence of that arrangement. Other finance will be available, and we shall certainly consider all the conditions that arise and the bills that are eventually entered. But the hon. Gentleman must face the fact that ordinary citizens also have their responsibilities, and therefore this is not as clear-cut a bleeding heart case as the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends sometimes make out.

Dr. Thomas: My neighbour, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to the need for measures to prevent such a disaster recurring. Will the Welsh Office arrange for a full survey of sea defences and bring together all the authorities concerned—including the NRA and British Rail, which has major indirect responsibilities for sea defence strategy—to ensure that such a disaster is never repeated?

Mr. Grist: I do not believe that such action is necessary in respect of most of the Welsh coast, because the parts of the coastline that are most exposed and at risk are already known. The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the local authorities in the flooded areas had already received various forms of finance through the Welsh Office. Prestatyn, for example, was well defended because it had built up its sea wall using urban money from the present Administration. Nevertheless, I am sure that the local authorities concerned will contact the Welsh Office if they have not already done so, and we shall undertake any investigation that is necessary.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Minister said that he has not yet met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. When the flooding occurred, many right hon. and hon. Members called for discussions with that body on establishing a system of national co-ordination, to avoid any similar disasters in future. The effectiveness of the construction of adequate sea defences at one point along the Welsh coast may be totally negated if proper defences do not exist elsewhere. Perhaps there is a need for co-ordination of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer).

Mr. Grist: We are moving away from the matters that are relevant to the NRA. Nevertheless, the flooding in north Wales was a major disaster and one in which, unusually, British Rail was involved—in the sense that it is not an organisation that springs to mind in such a context. I am told that not only has the breach in the sea defences been made good but the sea defences are better than before. Britain's sea defences and the effect that global warming may have are taken extremely seriously by the Government.

National Health Service

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the present state of the National Health Service in Wales.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend receives representations on a wide range of issues concerning the National Health Service.

Mr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that the majority of people in Wales are worried about the way in which the Government have looked after the interests of the National Health Service there over the past two or three years? Can he explain why?

Mr. Grist: Because a lot of irresponsible people are going round stirring up people and scaring them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that his health authority has now opened the latest hospital, at Llanelli and that he will bear witness to that. I hope that he will recognise that this year his health authority has a capital allocation that is 63 per cent. up on last year. I hope that he will agree that there has been a large increase in nurses' pay, a 25 per cent. increase in the number of consultants and a whole range of other things, including the lowering of the perinatal death rate, and increased life expectancy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would go round pointing out the truth of those facts rather than the shibboleths and nonsense that so often emanate from Opposition Benches.

Roads, South Clwyd

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the development of roads in south Clwyd.

Mr. Roberts: I have received a number of representations about improvements to the A494, A5 and A483 trunk road routes in south Clwyd.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he tell me why there has been a delay in the Newbridge bypass on the A483? Is it due to the fact that the bridge over the River Dee was some 4 inches out and did not meet?

Mr. Roberts: The Newbridge bypass is expected to open to traffic early in June.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Public Libraries

Mrs. Golding: To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of expenditure on public library services proposed for 1990–91.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): This information is not held centrally. The level of proposed expenditure on public library services is a matter for individual local authorities.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware of the increasing demand placed on the library service in areas such as north Staffordshire, where there are more and more elderly people and more elderly persons' homes opening? Is he further aware that the talking book service in north Staffordshire is severely ovestretched? When will he make a special allocation for the talking book service to help the blind and the partially sighted?

Mr. Luce: I have no doubt of the importance of the talking book service and the range of services that are provided for those who are disabled in one way or another. Broadly speaking, my duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 is to ensure a comprehensive and efficient service. All the evidence over the past few years shows that we have such a service in our public library system.

Mr. Conway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the important role that mobile libraries play in large rural areas such as Shropshire, which is a quarter of the land mass of the west midlands? Does he agree that the development and maintenance of such services is more important than diversification into the triendier areas of library provision such as compact discs for expensive compact disc players?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of mobile libraries. That is a decision for each local authority to make according to the needs of the area. Clearly it is important for the library service to provide a good service for those who want to use it and to make it as accessible as possible. I am glad that the number of service points has gone up in the past 10 years by 6,000, which helps to serve a wider range of people.

Charitable Giving

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to explain to the arts world, both consumers and producers, the measures announced in the Budget statement.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts how he intends to encourage further donations by businesses to arts bodies; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister for the Arts what contribution he expects will be received by arts and heritage bodies because of gift aid introduced in the recent Budget.

Mr. Luce: The introduction by the Chancellor of the gift aid incentive to charitable giving provides an unprecedented opportunity for the arts to raise even more resources from individuals and commerce. The Arts Council and the Museums and Galleries Commission intend to publicise the new arrangements.

Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the good news about gift aid and the excellent news following his decision about the Wilding report have been widely welcomed in my constituency and in Nottinghamshire by consumers and producers? We are justly proud of the depth and quality of the arts and of artists in the region.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of the wide range of arts facilities in the Nottingham area. Like so many other arts bodies, they stand to gain from the Chancellor's decision that on 1 October next the gift aid scheme will be introduced. That will be in addition to the wide range of tax incentives that are available to encourage giving, by both individuals and corporations. It will provide a unique opportunity to inspire private arts patronage at a much higher level.

Mr. Hughes: will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the greater capacity and willingness of people to give to charities? Should not he, however, warn the arts world that if it is to take full advantage of that, it must fight its own corner and ensure that a large proportion of its money comes from as many sources as possible?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There will be enormous competition within the charitable world to receive more money from individuals and corporations. It is very much in the arts world's court to ensure that it approaches the problem professionally in order to persuade the largest possible number of individuals and corporations to give money. As we look to the 1990s, we want to encourage more giving to the arts.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend intend to advise arts groups to concentrate on raising funds through gift aid or the payroll giving scheme rather than to seek sponsorship? That is a major concern in Leicestershire.

Mr. Luce: There is a wide range of means by which it is possible to give to arts organisations. I am in favour of a wide range of means, whether it be tax incentives to sponsors, or covenants, or the help that gift aid will contribute to one-off giving. A wide range of mechanisms can be used. The payroll scheme and the gift aid scheme complement each other. The gift aid scheme starts at £600 and above, whereas the payroll scheme is for all those who make contributions below that level.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to provide more money to the arts generally, and by the means outlined in the Budget, but does he recognise that unless more is done to restrict the sale overseas of some of our important works of art, what he hopes for will not be fully achieved?

Mr. Luce: The disparity between the rapid increase in prices of works of art and the resources that at any time and by any Government can be made available, through the taxpayer, to save works of art creates a real dilemma. However, the rules that have operated since the 1950s—the Waverley rules—under successive Governments, have worked extremely well. A wide range of measures and

mechanisms is available to save works of art, including the national heritage memorial fund and the acceptance in lieu of tax scheme.

Mr. Maclennan: The deficits of the four national performing companies are of an order of magnitude that cannot possibly be bridged by the budgetary measures that were referred to earlier. What steps does the Minister intend to take to deal with the Royal Opera House's deficit, which is projected to be £5 million?

Mr. Luce: The deficits vary according to the organisation concerned. I have made it plain, both in the Chamber and outside, that it is up to each arts organisation that is supported by the taxpayer to ensure that it cuts its coat according to the cloth available, that it works within the resources available to it and that any other course—particularly a course that deliberately creates a deficit in order to demand from the taxpayer, through the Arts Council, that it should be baled out—is unacceptable. It would be at the expense of the very many arts organisations that are acting responsibly. To act responsibly is the way forward. I praise the arts world for the fact that increasingly it is raising more resources from the private sector.

Dr. Kim Howells: Many Opposition Members welcome the measures that have been taken to encourage charitable donations to the arts, but does the Minister recognise that there are fears among Opposition Members that insufficient measures have been taken to encourage the imagination and creativity among young people that in any modern state is necessary? Unless we can do that, we shall not encourage either the arts or the sciences.

Mr. Luce: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman tries to observe what is happening in the arts around the country, where he will see a remarkable story. We have a growing number of centres of excellence, ranging from Glasgow to Birmingham, and Edinburgh to Bristol, let alone London, which is a great European capital city. The arts are expanding in this country. The importance of this question is that it allows me to tell the House that we are giving any number of private individuals the facility to choose to give to the arts organisations that they think are the best.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the arts world—to both consumers and producers—the fact that they have all benefited from the substantial growth Rn incomes over the past 11 years and that the greatest service that any Government can do for the arts is to bring about full employment and a thriving economy?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend's last point is absolutely right. Indeed, the arts world itself contributes to the health and wealth of this nation. To the extent that our economy is strong, the arts stand to gain. That is why our priority must be to bring down inflation because the arts also stand to benefit and can then take full advantage of the new gift aid proposals.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister's replies make it clear that he does not yet understand the scale of the financial crisis that is facing our four national companies in general and the Royal Opera House in particular. Despite the success of the Royal Opera House in playing to 92 per cent. capacity and in raising £6 million per year in sponsorship, the Government have cut its grant over the past four years. As


a result, this year the Royal Opera House is facing a deficit of £5 million and the national companies as a whole face deficits of £10 million. Will the Minister summon up the courage to do something about the deficits, or is it his policy to see theatres such as those of the Royal Shakespeare Company close or slide deeper into deficit?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from a slight tendency of his from time to time—but not on every occasion—to hyperbole. However, I realise that it is local elections week and that the hon. Gentleman feels that he has to say something. He knows perfectly well that during the next three years there will be a 24 per cent. overall increase in taxpayers' support for the arts. Bearing in mind the overspending Labour authorities, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that if a Labour Government were ever in office, they would dramatically increase the amount of available expenditure? I ask him that question because, like Labour authorities, Labour Governments are notorious for over-expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Equal Opportunities Programme

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement regarding the implementation of the equal opportunities programme in the civil service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Good progress across the board continues to be made on increasing equality of opportunity in the civil service. In May, I shall introduce a new programme for action in this area for people of ethnic minority origin.

Mr. Janner: First, may I welcome the Minister's personal approach to this problem and his recognition that there has been vast discrimination in the past, which has resulted in no people from ethnic minorities and very few women being in the top levels of the civil service? Secondly, when does he expect that his action programme will have any real effect?

Mr. Luce: As I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees, the most important principle in the civil service is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for people of all backgrounds. It is for that reason that over the past five years we have devised a programme of action that will facilitate just that opportunity and encourage the promotion of women within the service. That is why I plan to do just the same towards the end of May when I announce my programme of action for people from ethnic minorities. In addition, we are currently reviewing our code of conduct for the disabled, which will ensure that there is true equality of opportunity. However, people must be promoted and introduced to the service on the basis of merit.

Equal Opportunities

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how he intends to encourage people, particularly those who are university graduates, from the ethnic minorities, women with young children and the disabled, to consider the civil service as a career.

Mr. Luce: The civil service is developing a wide range of personnel policies to encourage recruitment from among all members of the community. These, together with a firm message about equal opportunities, are very much part of Civil Service Commission and departmental publicity about career opportunities.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be a broadening of opportunities for minorities in recruitment to the civil service. Will he confirm that that will not affect the quality of the civil service, and that high-quality recruits will still be required? Will he also confirm that promotion and salary increases will be dependent on a high quality of public service in the future?

Mr. Luce: Of course I can reassure my hon. Friend that the first priority is to ensure that we have a civil service of the highest quality. Looking to the demographic changes of the 1990s, we must ensure that the fullest possible range of opportunities is available for people of all backgrounds, as that is in the interests of our service. I shall ensure there are adequate programmes to facilitate that, and to enable us to recruit women, people from ethnic minorities and disabled people who have the high qualities that we are looking for.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will accept that this work has been continuing for some time, and that the efforts of the civil service unions are to be commended. Will he tell us, however, when he expects women to be represented equally with men in the ranks of the permanent secretaries?

Mr. Luce: The policy is not to go for equal representation for any part of the community, but to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for all people, whether or not they are women and whatever their background. We must concentrate our efforts on that. I accept that it is unsatisfactory that among the top grades only 6 per cent. are women. We must ensure that the promotional avenues are fully open to women; their numbers are increasing, but appointments must be made on the basis of merit.

Sir Robin Butler

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has received any representations from the civil service unions about Sir Robin Butler's appearance before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Dalyell: Do we distort or misunderstand Sir Robin Butler's words by suggesting that he took the view that a civil servant's duty and loyalty is now to the Government? Is not that a new doctrine? Some of us had imagined that a civil servant's duty and loyalty was to the Crown. Has there been a change in the constitution?

Mr. Luce: There has been no change. We are pursuing policies that successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—have accepted over the years. Plainly, civil servants owe their duty—as the hon. Gentleman says—to the Crown, but, to all intents and purposes, in those respects the Crown means the elected Government of the


day. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, Ministers took the same view. The policy remains the same, and will stay the same.

Trade Unions

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I meet the civil service unions from time to time to discuss a range of matters.

Mr. Barnes: Has there been any discussion on the low pay of support groups 1 and 2, which have been adversely affected by the abolition of the fair wages resolution, by the weakening of wage councils and by the poll tax? Should not there be a decent minimum wage for security guards, messengers and others within that grade?

Mr. Luce: There are procedures to deal with overall wage levels for various categories of the civil service. Of course, under the new policies we take into account the special needs of special categories. There is now a facility for flexible pay arrangements. It is being devised for much of the civil service, including the establishment of the new agencies.

Dr. Marek: When the Minister next meets the civil service unions, will he discuss with them direct entry to the higher executive officer grade? The Minister will remember that he and the Treasury got that completely wrong. Instead of trawling within the civil service, they spent a great deal of money on advertising, but 91 per cent. of the 184 entrants to Customs and Excise turned out to be civil servants already. The Minister should not waste public money. Will he take union advice next time?

Mr. Luce: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is not anticipating the next question; he may have intervened on the wrong question.
The policy on direct entry for recruitment is important. It is important to ensure that there is open competition and that employment is available to civil servants as well as to those from outside. It is good for the civil service—as it is for any organization—to recruit from all sources, including the private sector.

Civil Service Recruitment

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many direct entrants at HEO level have been accepted into the civil service under the recent recruitment scheme; and what was the target.

Mr. Luce: The target of filling some 740 posts through the higher executive officer open competition has been met. Of those appointed, 175 are direct entrants to the civil service at this level.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—on 91 per cent. of posts in Customs and Excise being filled by serving civil servants? Does not that suggest that

talent is available in the civil service, as the trade unions made clear to the Minister, and that his scheme is misconceived and a waste of public money? Will he recognise the talent under his nose within the civil service?

Mr. Luce: I fully recognise the talent of civil servants and the opportunities for promotion for talented civil servants. That was proved by this competition, in which the majority of people promoted were from within the civil service. It is not a waste of public money because it is exceedingly important for the service to recruit the best possible people to serve the Government and the nation. We shall achieve that by ensuring that, where possible, there is open competition and that the best possible people are recruited from outside as well as from inside the service.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that people from the regions, especially Yorkshire, are recruited directly to the civil service, at whatever age, so that their experience of other jobs and professions can contribute to it?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is to be encouraged but that is no reflection on the quality of people already serving in the service. We need the best possible range of people. It is healthy for the service to have the experience of those who have been in it for a long time and of those who have served in other walks of life. That adds strength to the civil service.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not finished yet.

Civil Service Agencies

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in developing civil service agencies in the last five weeks.

Mr. Luce: Excellent progress has been made. Eighteen new executive agencies have been set up this month, bringing the total to 30, employing some 66,000 staff. More agencies will be established in the next few months, and I would expect to see next steps applied to at least half the civil service by the end of 1991.

Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the promotion of those agencies is extremely important, to ensure that a better service is delivered to the public and that employees derive more job satisfaction?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The main objectives include ensuring not only better value for money for the taxpayer in managing the civil service but that the quality of the service provided by the various agencies is the highest to benefit the public. Evidence from the establishment of the first agencies shows that that is beginning to happen.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order in their proper place—after the statement.

Agriculture Council

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council from 25 to 27 April with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Agreement was reached on 1990 farm prices on the basis of a further compromise put forward by the Presidency and the Commission. In general, it maintains a price freeze, with reductions in a few areas. The common agricultural policy reforms agreed in 1988, including stabilisers, have been protected in full, despite the attempts of several countries to modify them.
The package also includes a significant devaluation of the green pound. In debates, hon. Members were at pains to inform me that that was the most important aim of the United Kingdom because it is the means whereby we can eliminate, or at least reduce, the disadvantages that accrue to British farmers in competition with other members of the European Community.
Monetary compensatory amounts will be reduced substantially at the beginning of the next marketing year. On the basis of the position on 27 April the changes would be, for cereals and other crops, a reduction from 19·7 per cent. to 8 per cent.; for milk from 18·8 per cent. to 11·1 per cent.; for beef from 15 per cent. to 5·8 per cent.; and for pigmeat from 11·4 per cent. to 0 per cent. The Commission originally proposed a one third reduction. Looking at it in that way, the reduction for cereals and other crops is not 33⅓ but 55 per cent., for milk 38 per cent., beef 55 per cent., pigs 86 per cent. and sheep 56 per cent. The associated increases in support prices paid to British farmers—these are not increases in general but are, if one likes, reductions in the disadvantage that they have experienced until now—will be as follows: on crops, 10·7 per cent.; milk, 6·8 per cent.; beef, 8·5 per cent.; and sheepmeat, 11 per cent. This will allow our producers to compete on a more equal basis and provide a vital stimulus for the United Kingdom farming sector.
The package also inludes five measures known as the rural world, measures which aid small producers. I did not support these, as they are relatively expensive and do not look forward to the viable and efficient European agriculture which, in my view, it is the Council's task to promote and is in the interests of the United Kingdom to achieve. However, the final agreement contains three important qualifications compared with the original proposals, all of which the United Kingdom has pressed and gained. First, the Commission has said that these measures have "limited scope", and there is therefore every hope that it will not propose any similar ones. Secondly, one of the measures is time limited and another is subject to review after two years. Thirdly, it has been explicitly accepted, contrary to all earlier assertions, that the aids will be taken fully into account in the calculation of the Community's global support for agriculture in the context of the current round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I opposed reductions in coresponsibility levies, although I am opposed to coresponsibility levies in principle, because I could not accept them unless there were offsetting price cuts, and those were strongly opposed

by some delegations. As a result, there are no reductions in coresponsibility levies, and the French Minister explained that their absence meant that he was not able to support the final package.
The Commission stated that the net cost of this settlement to the European Community budget will be 334 mecu in 1990 and 1,090 mecu in 1991. It confirmed that this would be met within the budget for 1990 and the agricultural guideline for 1991. I estimate that the net boost to United Kingdom farmers' returns in a full year will be perhaps £500 million. The effect on the retail prices index will be about 0·1 per cent. when fully worked through.
This outcome fully sustains the CAP reforms for which the Government have fought so hard, while giving a major boost to our agriculture in precisely the way that both sides of the House encouraged me to adopt in these negotiations. It shows how effectively the European Community can deal with the wide range of agricultural concerns of member states on a common basis. I commend it to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for making a full statement about the results of his discussions last week. He has announced a fairly good settlement which has been widely welcomed by farmers, and especially by the National Farmers Union. After so much depressing news over the past decade, I can understand their enthusiasm. It would be right, however, to remind the House of the other side of the equation—the taxpayer and the consumer. Obviously this price increase must be paid for from somewhere.
Will the Minister confirm that the cost of the settlement to the European taxpayer will be about £700 million in a full year? I understood him to say that the benefit to the farmers would be to the tune of £500 million per year. Is that a cost-effective way of running agriculture, given that the settlement will cost taxpayers and consumers £700 million while the farmers will get only £500 million? Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point.
Does the Minister realise that there is concern in farming circles about the long-term effect of the proposal on the stabiliser mechanism which, as the House will remember, was introduced with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House to try to reduce wasteful surpluses? The logic was that European farmers would be paid less if they produced too much. How can the Minister justify paying cereal farmers an extra 11 per cent. when they are supposed to be penalised to the tune of 3 per cent. for producing too much? That point requires explanation.
The third main group to be affected will be the hard-pressed consumers, who are already suffering the effects of food inflation much higher than general inflation. The Minister has said that the present settlement on a 50 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will add only 0·1 per cent. to the retail prices index, but he and the House know that the effect on food prices will be much greater, and that will penalise poorer households in particular. Does the Minister accept that the settlement that he has brought back from Europe will put up food prices by approximately I per cent., which will add more than 60p per week to the average household's food bill?
Can the Minister explain why he felt it right to oppose the rural world measures in addition to opposing the direct income aids which would do so much to help farmers in hard-pressed areas?
As a result of the settlement, farmers will receive an average increase in their income of more than 11 per cent., whereas, as the House will recall, farm workers were recently awarded a mere 9 per cent. That cannot be just. Many farm workers have been heavily penalised by the poll tax which, in some farming areas, such as the Minister's constituency of Suffolk, Coastal, with Tory-controlled county and district councils, is set at £109 more than the Government estimated. Will the Minister join me in advising farmers to play fair and pick up their farm workers' poll tax bills and so share the increase that he fought for and won for them in Brussels?

Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the decisions in general. As the outcome was rather better than that for which he was pressing me a few weeks ago, it seems a little curmudgeonly for him to say, "Having agreed with the decisions generally, let me come back with the aspects with which I disagree." I wonder whether, if I had returned from Brussels with no change in the green pound, he would have told me, "The taxpayers and consumers are very pleased with what you have brought back."
The hon. Gentleman asked about the long-term effect on stabilisers. There is a 3 per cent. cut in the price of grain. I can easily justify the so-called 11 per cent. increase for the grain producer in Britain, on the ground that his prices are significantly lower than those in the rest of Europe. Grain producers will not enjoy an increase; they will face a cut of 3 per cent., like everyone else. Their prices will still not be as high as those elsewhere in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that that is what the green pound is about, I understand why his invitations to meetings of farmers are limited in number.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the hard-pressed consumer. I am concerned about the consumer. That is why I was quick to say on the radio that the settlement would add less than 0·15 per cent. I found that I had rather over estimated; it will actually add less than 0·1 per cent. I said that because I do not think that we can expect farmers to bear on their shoulders an unfair burden in keeping retail prices down, which we do not expect motor car manufacturers, small business men or anybody else to do. Why should they be asked to bear that burden, in contrast with not only the rest of Europe but the rest of the Community?
I oppose the rural world proposals because they would do no good for Britain. As a collection, they do not help this nation. I am a British Minister of Agriculture and I am in the business of supporting Britain. What is more important, the proposals would do no good for Europe either. I am a convinced and fervent European and I believe that they would do no good for Europe. They would support uneconomic units which would never be economic and which would demand greater and greater support in circumstances which can do no good for Britain, Europe or the rest of the world.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 11 per cent. average increases in the incomes of farmers. It is not an 11 per cent. increase in the income of farmers but an 11 per cent. increase in the support prices for farmers. On reconsideration, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will

recognise that that is not the same thing because it is offset by the increase in costs which farmers will have from increases in prices. Two years ago, when farmers' incomes fell dramatically, I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman asked me to limit the increase in farm workers' incomes. He knows perfectly well that the two are not connected in that direct way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the community charge. In Suffolk, Coastal, as elsewhere, the major reason why the community charge is as high as it is is that Suffolk Coastal district council has increased its spending by 24 per cent. and Suffolk county council has increased its spending by 16 per cent. The fact that they are Conservative councils only shows that they have done better than the 50 Labour councils that have done enormously worse.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the disparity between the amounts paid to continental farmers for the same products—that is to say, the differential in the green pound—has been one of the hardest aspects of the common agricultural policy to defend? Will he accept the congratulations of Conservative Members on the substantial reduction that he has secured in that unfairness? Will he give an assurance that he will continue to battle until there is no disparity?

Mr. Gummer: The green pound system is wholly unacceptable. It must be abolished by the end of 1992. I shall do my best to ensure that there are substantial reductions between now and then.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister aware of recent studies which show that, contrary to popular belief, most farmers in this nation live on low incomes and that, therefore, what he has achieved will be widely welcomed by the farming community in general? Will he reflect that his achievement applies not to the income for the past year but to the next marketing year? Does he recall that last year Ministers also set out to achieve a large devaluation and in some cases achieved it but that it was undermined by currency movements? Is he aware that the beef sector, particularly last year, started with a nil disparity but has ended up out of line by 8 per cent? Does that outcome reflect a judgment in Government circles that over the next 18 months the pound sterling will not recover in the markets? Will he also reflect on the fact that the only long-term hope of success for the farming community is to have a green pound which at least floats and stays in line with currency values? If that were the case, he would not get into this dogfight every year because our farmers would compete on level ground. Has he made progress on that matter or should we look forward to the replacement of the green pound system?

Mr. Gummer: In response to the hon. Gentleman's final comments, let me say that the problem with the green pound, the green drachma, the green lira or anything else is that they fix for a long period an unreasonable exchange rate either above or below the currency value. That is not acceptable. That is why we are committed, as all countries in Europe are committed, to its abolition by the end of 1992. We cannot have a single market while such a system is working. I am pressing the Commission to come forward with its proposals as early as possible in order that we may work on them and ensure that the replacement for the system is wholly acceptable to everyone.
As for beef, I emphasise the important fact that we were offered 33⅓ per cent.; in the last compromise we got that up to 41 per cent.; in these debates and discussions, after considerable pressure in which hon. Members on both sides of the House played a part, we have got it up to 55 per cent. That is an important decision for Northern Ireland as well as elsewhere.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be well aware, having seen today's Notice Paper and the number of amendments that we must get through, of the pressure on the House's time today. I ask for single questions.

Mr. Paul Marland: Unlike the mealy-mouthed words from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I extend warm appreciation for what my right hon. Friend has achieved. It is a major achievement, widely welcomed throughout the industry. My right hon. Friend's breakthrough in the devaluation of the green pound will be welcomed by every farmer in the land—especially pig farmers, who have seen the monetary compensatory amounts completely wiped out.
A point that my right hon. Friend did not touch on but which will be widely welcomed is the speeding up of payments for goods taken into intervention.
I ask my right hon. Friend finally not to lose his commitment to dismantling the coresponsibility levies, because they are a mean tax which do not get anyone anywhere.

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly not lose my commitment to that, because the coresponsibility levies are a tax on the income of farmers without reducing the price to the consumer. They are therefore unacceptable both as a marketing aid and in equity. I am particularly pleased by the dismantling of the monetary compensatory amounts for pig producers, because they are among those least supported by the Community system, so they have the greatest sense of grievance when they are discriminated against.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that in any one year our pro rata contribution to the common agricultural policy, paid through tax, is between £3 billion and £4 billion, of which we receive only about half back in support? What proportion of the increased moneys that will now go to farmers will come from EEC funds and what proportion from United Kingdom consumers?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that under these changes the proportion remains very much the same, but I remind him that the European Community is much more important than the simple balance that he has put forward. As a country we benefit enormously from our membership of this growingly important group in Europe. We are proud to be members of it, and our membership is vital to our future prosperity.

Sir Charles Morrison: This settlement will be as welcome to the British people as it is to farmers, because everyone wants a prosperous and attractive-looking countryside. But to complete the picture, on which I

congratulate my right hon. Friend, will he tell us how he thinks the settlement will benefit the conservation of the countryside?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to the need to ensure that the countryside of England is farmed. If the United Kingdom has an unfarmed countryside, that will be to the detriment of conservationists everywhere. We need a prosperous farming sector if those who have created the landscape are to be able to continue to look after it. That is why I welcome this settlement from a conservationist's, as much as from a farm income, viewpoint.

Mr. Richard Livsey: It would be churlish not to welcome this devaluation of the green pound. It is clearly welcome in the agriculture industry, but the past five years have been disastrous for farming and this change has been a long time coming.
Will the green pound be abolished before 1922, and will the Minister be working towards that end? Does he agree that, in rejecting the rural world proposals, he is discriminating against British small farmers as well as their continental counterparts?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must read the rural world arrangements. If we supported those arrangements, we would find that what Britain calls small farmers would be discriminated against because most of the arrangements apply to what we would refer to as micro-farmers. The farmers that the hon. Gentleman represents in Brecon and Radnor would be the people most disadvantaged by the continuance of such a policy. It is because I have a real concern for small farmers that I am not willing to support a proposal that reaches out only to the very smallest of farmers, most of whom are not found in the United Kingdom except to a very small degree. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that any decision about the future of the green pound depends on 12 Ministers agreeing. This decision is a good one for the United Kingdom because it was reached with the agreement of the other 11 Ministers, all of whom are to some degree disadvantaged by the removal of this disadvantage to the British farmer.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's personal success as a well-informed, logical and pertinacious negotiator for this country. Can he clarify that the £500 million increase in income for the farming industry is gross and not net and that it will help that industry to meet the increases in costs for electricity and water, for instance, which are far higher than the retail prices index?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an increase in gross income. I thank him for his tribute, which comes particularly well from him, given his great experience in agriculture. For reasons that we would prefer not to be true but which are true, British agriculture benefits to a greater extent than others from the shortening of the payments period because, when there is a high interest rate, payments that are made more promptly save money for those who would otherwise pay a high interest rate on the money.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister get advice from the vertebrate zoologists who are available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ask


for their figures showing the decline in amphibian populations? Will he put those bio-indicators on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Frogs' legs."] Hon. Members should not mock. The decline in frogs all over the Community is absolutely alarming. Tadpoles perform an excellent function in the destruction of algae, and frogs destroy insects rather better than insecticides. This matter is ecologically serious and should be tackled.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have taken an active part in promoting the causes that he has in mind, and I shall certainly look at the point that he raises. I am sure that no hon. Member would fail to seek to make a change in a situation which means that what was once referred to as the common frog ought now to be referred to as the uncommon frog.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend take encouragement from what will be seen as an excellent settlement for the livestock industry? Will he go further next year and eliminate the MCAs altogether? Does he further agree that it is time that the super-levy was eliminated from the dairy sector?

Mr. Gummer: I agree that we need to look at all the systems of levy that are in place at the moment. An important part of this settlement was that the Community showed itself wholly supportive in the end of the tough measures to restrain production which were pioneered by the United Kingdom. It also wholly supports the Community's proposals in the GATT round. Previously they had not been unanimously supported, but they now have the additional support of the two minority countries, Germany and Ireland. Together we have shown that we are determined to keep up the pressure. Of course we must look at the mechanisms that we use if they turn out to be less than satisfactory.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that thousands of people who work on the land in Britain will not clap their hands as a result of his statement? The people who create the real wealth in the countryside, the farm workers, have a job to keep their head above water financially, especially now that they have to pay the poll tax. If he had any guts, he would go back to the Common Market and negotiate a supplement to pay the poll tax for farm workers. Why does not this micro-Minister do that instead?

Mr. Gummer: I thought that almost every country had ceased to make this artificial distinction between farmers and farm workers as the creators of wealth in the countryside. It is only in the fastnesses of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the recesses of his mind that that Marxist myth continues to exist. Farm workers in Britain are much more likely to be well off in a prosperous farming industry than in an industry that is strapped for cash and unable to make next year's budget balance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The best thanks of the farming community in Northern Ireland go to the Minister, and I congratulate him on having accomplished a good job. We also thank him for listening to the strong representations that came from Northern Ireland, through both Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. The beef farmers in Northern Ireland have had a rough ride because of smuggling and

the differential in the green currencies of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Will the Minister press on with eliminating altogether the green pound differential?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the green pound must go. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I note that the whole community—Unionist and Nationalist and the different parties in the House and in the European Parliament—combined to pressurise me and the Commission in the battle to deal with beef in the north of Ireland. It has been a great achievement, a significant part of which is owed to that lobby.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that, while the farming community is grateful for his success in respect of the devaluation of the green pound, it remains extremely concerned that that work will be eroded by the further failures of the economy, particularly inflation, which will again widen the gap? Is he ready to throw his weight behind immediate entry into the European exchange rate mechanism to ensure that inflation does not hit the farmers?

Mr. Gummer: One way to ensure that we reduce inflation is by keeping up the pressure on inflation, particularly through interest rates. Therefore, I have riot only thrown my weight behind but am wholeheartedly in support of the Government's tough measures on that front. If the hon. Gentleman explained to the public why it is important to have high interest rates to keep inflation down, he would be doing much more than peddling a panacea, as he so often does.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are 26 groups of amendments to be dealt with in the next debate. I shall do my utmost to call all hon. Members who have been rising, up to 4.15 when we must move on. I ask for brief questions.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I give my right hon. Friend the warm thanks of my farmers for achieving the biggest green pound devaluation ever, which will greatly help sheep and beef farmers and milk producers. Does not this fully justify the opinion of Lancashire farmers, who said at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting this year that my right hon. Friend would make a jolly good president of the NFU?

Mr. Gummer: I count a number of jobs more difficult than that of being Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that is one of them. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks, and the support of the Lancashire farmers in these negotiations has been particularly helpful. In these matters, the Ministry and farmers as a whole, whether members of the union or not, are on the same side.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his package will be enormously welcomed by everybody involved in agriculture in my part of the country—the Marches—and that it will confirm their opinion that he is a heavyweight Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? First, can he confirm that this is within the budget of the common agricultural policy and does not constitute a straying outside it? Secondly, in


looking towards that important date when all MCAs must go in 1992, is he satisfied that there is sufficient commitment among his fellow Ministers to achieve that?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in saying that much depends upon the commitment of one's fellow Ministers. Almost without exception, they recognise that it is not possible to have a single market without the abolition of the green currency system. The problem is to determine how to achieve that end. We shall have to enter into some tough negotiations to get that right.

Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that every farmer in Dorset is delighted with the settlement? I thank him especially on two counts: first, for the settlement which he and his team worked so hard to achieve; secondly, for his clear recognition that our farming community has had a tough time over the past three years. That is a clear sign that he will be fighting just as hard over next year's budget to achieve total parity.

Mr. Gummer: It is right to say that British farmers have had a particularly difficult time over the past few years because of the disadvantages that they have faced in respect of their income compared with that of other farmers within the European Community. I remind my hon. Friend that, at a time when there is a production surplus, it cannot be as easy for farmers to produce high incomes as it was when there was a shortage of production. I should not like anyone to believe that the next few years will be easy in Europe, or in the rest of the world, for farmers. We must seek fairness and equality of opportunity for farmers to compete in world markets. I seek a situation in which the British farmer is not disadvantaged by the green pound or any other part of the CAP.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a devaluation of the green pound which could not have been anticipated. I ask him for some elucidation on sheep price increases. I refer to the ewe premium and guide prices. Will these have to wait until January 1991, which is the start of the sheep year, or is there any hope of earlier implementation?

Mr. Gummer: I fear that the facts of the market are that such changes take place at the beginning of each agricultural marketing year. That makes things especially difficult for the sheep producer because he has to wait the longest. If I could have found a way of changing that, I would have done so. That was not possible for a range of reasons, some of which are rather complicated and technical. We have in the past resisted changes because they have been disadvantageous overall to the United Kingdom. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is particularly galling for sheep farmers that they have to wait so long for the very significant increase which they deserve and which they will get.

Mr. William Hague: Now that my right hon. Friend's excellent negotiating achievement has given British farmers a fairer chance to compete, does he agree that improved attention needs to be given to the

effective marketing of their products throughout the Community? May we look forward to any new proposals about the future operations of Food From Britain?

Mr. Gummer: I hope to make an announcement in the next couple of days about the chairmanship of Food From Britain. I have already made arrangements to extend its remit and funding for three years so that it is able to fight the battle for British food within the European single market. I agree that, whatever prices are on a Community basis, in the end it is the selling of British food aggressively and effectively that matters. We produce some of the best food in the world. We have a reputation in the world for having the best food surveillance systems and the highest standards of food safety that are to be found anywhere.

Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the substantial devaluation of the green pound confounds the gloomy predictions which have been made with such relish by the Opposition? Does he also agree and acknowledge that his announcement today will be welcomed by the NFU nationally and by its county leaders, not least in Devon and Cornwall? In the difficulties that agriculture is facing, it will go some way to keep Britain farming.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that most farmers recognise that much of what they hear from the Opposition is grounded not in fact but in party-political ambition.

Mr. Quentin Davies: As the representative of a constituency with a substantial commitment to arable farming, may I tell my right hon. Friend that his announcement today will bring forth much admiration and gratitude in farming for his negotiating skills? Is not it the first serious breakthrough in the process to bring to an end the pernicious system of green currencies that we have suffered for much too long? It will have at least two effects: first, a sorely needed boost to the economics of the farming industry, and therefore to investment confidence; and, secondly, a boost to the credibility of my right hon. Friend's efforts to bring the green currency system to an end. He is turning into a remarkable Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at the beginning of the negotiations the other 11 member states were opposed to our devaluation and that the Commission was proposing a one third devaluation? Can he explain how he managed to achieve an agreed settlement half as good again as the Commission's original proposal without the other member states apparently obtaining commensurate increases in producer prices?

Mr. Gummer: The EEC is, in fact, a good organisation and if member states work together it is to the benefit of all. This is one example of how the EEC works at its best and why it is to the benefit of British farmers and the British nation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the farmers and the farm workers of Scotland will be delighted with his achievements in Brussels? Will he send them the message that it in no way changes his commitment to FEOGA grants that he gave in an earlier statement?

Mr. Gummer: It does not change any of my commitments. I am pleased that we are getting a little closer to parity. I hope that we will achieve parity and the removal of discrimination as soon as possible.

Mr. Barry Field: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is only one National Farmers Union county branch that has a Member of Parliament all to itself? Is he further aware that the county chairman has warmly welcomed this package of measures? We have many small farmers on the Isle of Wight, which gives the lie to the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the package will disaffect small farmers. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the reduction in the payment period will do much to narrow the perception of farming that it is not an industry where profits are required or where wealth creation is necessary?

Mr. Gummer: Although it may have been a necessary part of the pressure on farm incomes, it sits ill in the Community to insist upon 120-day payment when we are trying to pay small businesses and to set an example to people who owe money.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Sherwood farmers, whom I was with on Saturday night. Is he aware that they were ecstatic about the settlement? Indeed, I thought that each and every one of them would receive £590 million. Some commented that my right hon. Friend had performed a miracle. In view of that, could he reiterate how he achieved a settlement that doubled what was on the table?

Mr. Gummer: I say again that it was because the European Community works. It provides the means within which 12 countries can agree proper arrangements for agriculture. If we did not do it that way, we would be battling among ourselves to the detriment of all. The common agricultural policy is a thoroughly good way to deal with common problems.

Mr. Derek Conway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement in firm defence of British farming interests will be widely welcomed by Shropshire farmers? Will he confirm that his announcement will, however, have little impact on food prices in shops, because farmers receive such a small percentage of the final cost of that food?

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that some of the popular newspapers have sought to suggest that the increases in food prices are wildly greater than they will be. Farmers in Britain deserve a reasonable return for their important job of producing food for Britain and looking after the landscape. If they are not provided with that money, they cannot do that job.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner of Llanddewi Velfrey community council whose members asked me to convey the thanks of the Pembrokeshire beef and dairy farming communities for the increases that my right hon. Friend secured. I gladly do so. What success is my right hon. Friend having in ensuring that all farmers receive equitable treatment within the EEC, and that those continental farmers who seem to be fiddling the CAP and fail to produce properly audited accounts are brought to book?

Mr. Gummer: We are completely against fraud within the European Community wherever it is perpetrated. I would be against fraud by farmers in Britain as in anywhere else in the Community.
I am only sad that we are talking today not about an increase in the margins available to British farmers but a decrease in the disadvantage that they hitherto suffered. I wish that people would talk about such settlements in those terms, because that is the only way that we will get rid of the green pound.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not the answer that my right hon. Friend has just given highlight the Alice-in-Wonderland world that this is? We are cheering increased subsidies, either through taxes or higher consumer prices, which is an extraordinary stance for hon. Members on this side of the House, and no one is giving a cheer for the consumer. Should not consumer interests take priority?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is wrong, because the consumer is protected by having a lively farming industry able to produce the food that the consumer wants. The consumer is protected because 80 per cent. of Britain's land area is looked after by farmers. The consumer is protected because the rural areas have enough income to maintain their economies and their populations. The consumer gets a very good deal out of the settlement. It is quite wrong to drive a wedge between consumer and farmer.

Points of Order

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance regarding the interpretation of Standing Order No. 86(2), which concerns the composition of Standing Committees, with particular reference to that appointed last week to consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
On 2 April, the House was given an explicit assurance by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House that the composition of the Standing Committee upstairs would be decided after a decision had been reached on the Floor of the House on the issues of embryo experimentation and late abortion. None of us had any doubts about that at the time, and those two issues were debated in Committee in the Chamber.
The Bill contains many other provisions of concern to pro-life right hon. and hon. Members, who are to be found in all parts of the House. All the Bill's provisions are of concern to those right hon. and hon. Members. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that of the 18 hon. Members nominated for the Committee, 15 voted for research involving the destruction of the human embryo and only two voted against. If the Committee is to reflect the pro-life element of the House as a whole, as expressed in those two recent relevant votes, those who oppose the present totality of the Bill's provisions should be represented by at least six members of the Committee.
Standing Order No. 86 refers specifically to the qualifications—I emphasise, qualifications—of the members chosen to serve on a Committee. Several right hon. and hon. Members who are extremely knowledgeable on the subject—including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who himself introduced a relevant Bill—applied to be selected for the Committee but were turned down, so there are only two representatives on the Standing Committee of the pro-lifers in the House.
My long experience of the House has stretched over many Parliaments and over 40 years. I cannot recall a similar example of such blatant disregard of the composition of the House in the membership of a Standing Committee—it flies in the face of the terms of the Standing Order. I should be grateful for your guidance on how the House can redress that injustice.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member knows that the duty of nominating Members to Standing Committees is placed on the Committee of Selection by Standing Order No. 86. It is not a matter for the Chair. Any comment regarding the membership of a Committee should be addressed to the Chairman of the Selection Committee.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House gave a specific undertaking to the House on the evening of 2 April—in column 987 of the Official Report—that, as the Father of the House has just informed us, the composition of the Standing Committee would reflect the outcome of debates at the beginning of last week. As the Father of the House has told us, the composition of that Committee will reflect less than half of the proportion of opposition expressed to the two major items that were the subject of debate at the beginning of last week. That is too big a discrepancy for the House to permit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to say any more on the issue, other than to repeat what I have already told the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and in normal circumstances I would accept your ruling, but my first point is that I wrote to the Chairman of the Selection Committee and I received no answer. My second point is that the Standing Committee meets tomorrow. In other words, there is no way that the matter can be remedied, as the Chairman of the Selection Committee has not bothered to reply. In the last analysis, Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of minorities. Based on my experience in the matter, I am stating that there has been a blatant disregard of the provisions of the Standing Order and I ask you to be so kind as to reflect on the situation which, as far as I am concerned, is totally without precedent.

Sir Marcus Fox: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have been mentioned, as the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I must say to the Father of the House—and it gives me no pleasure to do so—that I received his letter on Thursday, and it was my intention to see him today, as I was not in the House on Friday, to explain the workings of the Committee of Selection. He said that there was a blatant disregard for the debate, but our duties are quite straightforward. That Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is a Government Bill and the Government are entitled to a majority on the Committee. We have no say over the size of the Committee. It is our duty to see that the Government have a majority. If my right hon. Friend does his homework he will find that, excluding Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, two of the five Conservative Members chosen were hon. Members whom he would like to see on the Committee. If my Conservative colleagues on the Committee voted in that fashion—and it would be open to Opposition Members to vote as they saw fit—there would be a draw. I have no control over the nominations from the Labour party or other minor Opposition parties. That is the system.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me but for the Committee of Selection. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and other hon. Members have heard what the Chairman has had to say on the matter.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have seen reports over the weekend that the Prime Minister is considering major changes to the poll tax and that new legislation could be introduced in the summer. Those reports have produced an all-too-familiar poll tax confusion with some Ministers flatly opposing any such change and others, including those most directly involved, professing no knowledge of any such change. At first, the Prime Minister's Office apparently confirmed the reports, but this morning they apparently briefed journalists that no change in the tax is to be expected.
My point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is that significant changes to the poll tax at this stage would be of great interest to local electors as they try to make up their minds before next Thursday's local elections and to local government which faces the prospect of gearing up to yet another major change within just a month of the poll tax


being introduced. The prospect of new legislation is also of the greatest interest to you and to the House as a whole: it would have considerable significance for the remainder of the legislative programme.
If Ministers and their civil servants can brief journalists and say that there will or will not be any change, why can they not make a similarly clear statement to the House? Have either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Environment approached you about a possible statement? If not, when do you expect to hear and, through you, when can the House expect to hear whether legislation on this vital matter is to be expected?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need too much help. Like all other hon. Members, I have read what was said in the newspapers. I listened, furthermore, to last Wednesday's debate. If hon. Members will refresh their memories by looking at the Votes and Proceedings of 25 April, they will see that the House specifically resolved that the Government proposed
to listen to constructive suggestions for improving the new system with a view to prompt implementation of any necessary changes".
I am not surprised, therefore, that discussions are taking place.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it be for the convenience of those who will be casting their votes on Thursday if they could have a clearer idea of the Labour party's roof tax proposal, about which there has been the most monumental confusion for months?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a re-run of last Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Scottish electorate has a particular interest in these matters. We want to know whether there will be a U-turn by the Prime Minister or whether she will give a V-sign. Particularly in the light of the shambles that ensued after the Budget statement, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland trailed along after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must ask you whether you have had any request from the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement so that when people vote next Thursday they will know whether they are voting for the poll tax, or for another form of poll tax or for no poll tax at all.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no request from the Secretary of State for Scotland for a statement to be made. The Prime Minister will be at the Dispatch Box tomorrow. That will be the moment when hon. Members can raise matters of this kind.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the application of the sub judice rule in this high court of Parliament whenever there is
a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
in another high court, the High Court of Justice. I refer to "Erskine May", page 378.
On Friday, the Court of Appeal decided that the case of Regina v. Cullen and Others was overwhelmingly prejudiced by statements made at the time by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon.

Gentleman replied in a written answer on 20 October 1988, issued a press statement the same day and went on television, as the Court of Appeal said
to express himself in strong terms at a critical stage in the trial that a failure to answer questions or give evidence was tantamount to guilt.
By this time the accused had made it clear that they would not give evidence, the trial having begun on 10 October. On the same day, 20 October, the then Home Secretary, also in a written answer, confirmed that he had reached a similar conclusion to that reached by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: that there was a strong case for the law to be changed in England and Wales. As the trial judge said:
It would have been far better, putting it at its lowest, for the comments of the Northern Ireland Secretary not to have been made.
Apart from the obvious question of where was the common sense of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for the Home Department, the question that arises is how Ministers and, indeed, Members should conduct themselves when controversial or other trials are in progress. Hence the sub judice rule. As the Court of Appeal stated:
As could easily have been foreseen on so controversial a matter the media were immediately and intensely interested.
The trial was at a critical stage, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was the alleged victim of a conspiracy and obviously followed the course of the trial day by day. What advice did he receive? Was the Attorney-General consulted by either Secretary of State, and if not, why not? Was the Attorney-General not volunteering advice or was not it the case—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morris: I am coming to my point, Mr. Speaker. Was not it the case that only a fool would have wanted advice in those circumstances? What the House is anxious to know—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must address a point of order to me; I have not yet heard any reference to one.

Mr. Morris: I thought that it was important that the facts upon which the alleged breach of the sub judice rule came into play should be known. I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because the House is anxious for your guidance about how we should conduct ourselves if Ministers are seen to be riding roughshod over those rules. After advice from the Attorney-General and your own counsel, will you, Mr. Speaker, consider where the sub judice rule now stands? What steps should Ministers, who are obviously in breach of that rule, take to explain themselves to the House?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need any help—[Interruption.] Order. Allow me to deal with this. As far as the case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is concerned, I do not think that the sub judice rule was called in doubt at that time. It is now two years ago, but I do not think that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to that specific case. The whole House well knows that the sub judice rule bites upon specific cases.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Court of Appeal interpreted the comments of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in such a way as to make it obvious that it was an inference and did, in fact, prejudice the case, I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, further to consider where the sub judice rule now stands and what further guidance should now be given to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsibile for the interpretation of the appeal judges. That is not a matter of order for me. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is alleging—I hope that he is not—that I should have stopped the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland responding to that question, that is a different matter, but I am afraid that he will have to pursue it in the proper way.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on this matter, because the sub judice rule means that if the House is considering a criminal justice Bill, for example—and some recent such Bills have been extensive, covering many subjects—our discussions are bound to impinge on certain cases going through the courts. The whole purpose of a criminal justice Bill is to improve the standards of our justice in this country. Therefore, I should be grateful if you would reconsider this matter, Mr. Speaker, because some of our comments may lead to judges taking an adverse view of certain cases in the future.

Mr. Speaker: There is no implicit sub judice rule when we are dealing with legislation. That is another and a different matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us who have been here for a long time think that it extraordinary that, after two of the events of the weekend—both of which have been raised on previous points of order—no Minister has volunteered to make a statement to the House. First, there is the question of the poll tax confusion; secondly—equally important in a constitutional sense—other extraordinary events have taken place. Surely it is unprecedented for the responsible Minister not to be prepared to make a statement to the House the following Monday.
May I put the matter the other way round Mr. Speaker? If the Government do not think that it is necessary to report to the House on those matters, can you give us any idea what extraordinary, almighty botch the Government would have to achieve before the Minister would have to report to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Botches made by either side of the House are not included among my many responsibilities. Each case must be judged on its merits. I am not aware that the Government have said that any statement will be made, but what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been heard by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on how Back-Bench Members can be protected from a phenomenon that has developed recently—possibly because we are being televised. It concerns the number of Members who are

really Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen on matters such as the community charge in Scotland. This afternoon, for instance, a Labour Front-Bench spokesman raised what I considered to be a spurious point of order, simply to draw attention to what he was saying in election week.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), Mr. Speaker. On behalf of hon. Members who are not lawyers, may I suggest that the Attorney-General or another Law Officer should come to explain what has happened, even if the Minister responsible—the Secretary of State for Defence—will not do so? Are we not entitled to that? Before the present Government came to power, it was accepted by Governments of both parties that Law Officers should come to explain such matters. Why has that practice stopped?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a completely different matter. It is a matter for the Government, and I am sure that it will have been heard by them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Chair to allow the motion that we are about to consider, which relates to European Community document No. 4963 under Standing Order No. 102(3), to be put before the House? You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that Standing Order No. 102(3) allows any European document to be considered on such a motion—there is no limitation or restriction. However, Standing Order No. 46 says that any measure that has consequences for public expenditure must be specifically recommended by the Crown. In the papers attached to the motion, the Paymaster-General says that the consequence of the document will be an increase in our EEC contribution of £115 million next year and £195 million in the following year.
It could be said that these are merely proposals. Clearly there is nothing wrong in referring to a Standing Committee proposal with financial consequences, which may be rejected or approved. Sadly, however, the Government's second paper states that the proposals have already been approved, on 22 March. Therefore, it is a direct charge on the taxpayer.
I have read the proposals in today's Order Paper. They are dynamic proposals, which will have serious consequences for public expenditure. How is it possible to refer that to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 102(3), when it involves a substantial increase in Britain's public expenditure without any recommendation from the Crown? Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider the matter and invite the Government not to move the motion? Alternatively, could we have a sensible way of dealing with what is a great deal of money—an extra £200 million—which must be paid to the European Community as a direct consequence of that document, the principle of which has already been approved in Brussels?

Mr. Speaker: The motion is in order, but the hon. Gentleman will know that if 20 hon. Members rise in their place when I put it, the Noes will have it, and it then becomes a matter for debate on the Floor.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, on several occasions you have deprecated the way in which Ministers tell the media what is intended but not the House. As you


said, since Friday the media have been full not only of discussion and quotes from Ministers but of reports on legislation on the poll tax coming before the House, possibly in July. Why are Members of Parliament being denied the opportunity of hearing statements from Ministers, who are busy telling the press what they intend to do?

Mr. Speaker: We had a long debate on this matter last week and many such statements were put to the Government. The Government specifically stated in the Votes and Proceedings that they would listen to what has been said in the House.

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your help with speculation that appeared over the weekend about changes to the poll tax legislation? I have it on reasonable authority that Northern Ireland Conservatives are pressurising the Government to force the poll tax on the people of Northern Ireland. I should like your help in persuading the Minister to make a statement about that, as there is grave anxiety in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman specifically used the word "speculation". I am concerned not with speculation in the press but points of order in the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us, with 26 groups of amendments. I will call the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give further thought to written questions and the sub judice rule, especially the problems with planted questions" In the past, I have tabled at least two questions to which the sub judice rule might have applied. Your office and the Clerks had to make extensive inquiries, some of which involved asking questions of the Department to which the question had been tabled, about whether the sub judice rule was likely to be breached. Eventually, I was told that one question would appear on the Order Paper but that the other would have to wait. The problem is the practice that we refer to as "plants", whereby Departments find a sympathetic Member to table a question, often late at night and sometimes minutes before the House rises for answer the following day. That presents a problem for your office, because it has little time to decide whether the question is sub judice. The assumption is that because it has been tabled to a Department—we all know how planted questions come from Departments—it cannot be sub judice. Clearly, on this occasion the Department made an almighty blunder. Will you give this further consideration so that in future there is some safeguard other than the Department and to prevent the Department and the procedures of the House from getting into difficulty? The purpose of the sub judice rule is to protect the House from making just such a mistake. Clearly, on this occasion we all got it wrong.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman sensibly said, problems arise when written questions are tabled late in the day. I will certainly reflect on what he has said.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the general

question of ministerial statements, over the past few months you may have noticed an increasing tendency for statements to be made by some Departments, of which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is an example, on relatively uncontroversial issues, yet they are reluctant to make statements on controversial issues. When there is a furore and dozens of points of order are made, taking up much of your time, you always say that you are not directly involved in decisions and that it is a matter for the Government. Will you give consideration to changes to involve you, as Mr. Speaker, and the Opposition in the subjects on which statements are made, or give more generous consideration to requests for private notice questions so that there can be some balance?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whether a Minister makes a statement is not a matter for me. I am responsible for private notice questions, and the criteria for granting them are clearly laid down in the Standing Order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Friday I raised the confusing statements emanating from various Ministers, including the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. You were in the Chair at 9.30 am and I raised it subsequently, but we did not get a Minister here. We now have a Minister here—the Leader of the House. Last Thursday, he told us what the business would be for this week. You said during a debate on Wednesday, and you repeated today, that the Government have plans to change the poll tax. However, on that same day a reply was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope), that no poll tax changes were contemplated. Therefore, we had two different statements being made on the same day. Ministers are giving a nod and a wink to the idea that there will be changes, but a parliamentary written answer says that there will be none. The Leader of the House should drag himself up and tell us what the score is.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go over that again. I know that the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings carefully, but I draw his attention to what is stated on page 540 of the Votes and Proceedings for 25 April.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the motion that the Leader of the House is about to ask us to vote on is contradicted by Standing Order No. 46, which is entitled:
Recommendation from Crown required on application relating to public money"?
It is clear from the motion and the explanatory notes accompanying it that we are being asked to increase Government spending by £115 milion this year and by £195 million next year, in breach of the ceilings on agricultural spending in the EEC, which we were told by the Prime Minister were legally binding. It would appear that, without recommendation from the Crown, by nodding through the motion we are being asked to pass an increase in public spending by subterfuge. Although you have said that it is in order, have you fully considered the constitutional implications of the clash with Standing Order No. 46?

Mr. speaker: Everything that appears on the Order Paper is carefully considered and I am satisfied that the motion is in order. I have already told the hon. Member for Southend, East(Mr. Taylor) what he should do if he does not like it.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put,

That European Community Document No. 4963/90 and COR 1 relating to revision and adjustment of the Community's financial perspective submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th March 1990 be referred to a standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 76.

Division No. 185]
[4.47 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Flynn, Paul


Amos, Alan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Atkinson, David
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fyfe, Maria


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harris, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cartwright, John
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Irvine, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Janman, Tim


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Favell, Tony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kennedy, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Livsey, Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin


Maclennan, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stokes, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thorne, Neil


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mudd, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Paice, James
Watts, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Price, Sir David
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, John
Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Riddick, Graham





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Buckley, George J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)






Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fry, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Redmond, Martin


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Janner, Greville
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jessel, Toby
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kilfedder, James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Wells, Bowen


Lewis, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


McAllion, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McCartney, Ian
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Madden, Max



Marlow, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Jonathan Aitken and Mr. Teddy Taylor.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to that raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about the sub judice rule. May we have a ruling from you tomorrow about statements made by Ministers on general matters of law in cases in which the Court of Appeal subsequently reverses the decision of a lower court? Clearly, on your ruling today, the matters in question were not sub judice, and ruling in this case has major implications for the future. May we also have your advice on whether Court of Appeal rulings may be debated after they are issued?

Mr. Speaker: As I told the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I shall reflect on this matter and see whether the responsibility is properly mine.

Orders of the Day — Environmental Protection Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 11

PUBLIC REGISTERS OF INFORMATION

`.—(1) It shall be the duty of each enforcing authority, as respects prescribed processes for which it is the enforcing authority, to maintain, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to—

(a) applications for authorisations made to that authority;
(b) the authorisations which have been granted by that authority or in respect of which the authority has functions under this Part;
(c) variation notices, enforcement notices and prohibition notices issued by that authority;
(d) revocations of authorisations effected by that authority;
(e) appeals under section 14 above;
(f) convictions for such offences under section 20(1) below as may be prescribed;
(g) information obtained or furnished in pursuance of the conditions of authorisations or under any provision of this Part;
(h)directions given to the authority under any provision of this Part by the Secretary of Stale; and
(i) such other matters relating to the carrying on of the prescribed processes or any pollution of the environment caused thereby as may be prescribed;

but that duty is subject to sections (Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security) and (Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information) below.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the register maintained by a local enforcing authority shall also contain prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained by the chief inspector as relates to the carrying on in the area of the authority of prescribed processes in relation to which the chief inspector has functions under this Part; and the chief inspector shall furnish each authority with the particulars which are necessary to enable it to discharge its duty under this subsection.

(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply to port health authorities but each local enforcing authority whose area adjoins that of a port health authortiy shall include corresponding information in the register maintained by it; and the chief inspector shall furnish each such local enforcing authority with the particulars which are necessary to enable it to discharge its duty under this subsection.

(4) Where information of any description is excluded from any register by virtue of section (Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information) below, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.

(5) The Secretary of State may give to enforcing authorities directions requiring the removal from any register of theirs of any specified information not prescribed for inclusion under subsection (1) or (2) above or which, by virtue of section (Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security) or (Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information) below, ought to have been excluded from the register.

(6) It shall be the duty of each enforcing authority—

(a) to secure that the registers maintained by them under this section are available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and


(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(7) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.

(8) For the purpose of enabling the National Rivers Authority to discharge its duty under section 117(1)(f) of the Water Act 1989 to keep corresponding particulars in registers under that section, the chief inspector shall furnish the Authority with the particulars contained in any register maintained by him under this section.

(9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations under this section.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 12—Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security.

Government new clause 13—Exclusion from public registers of certain confidential information—
' .—(1) No information relating to the affairs of any individual or business shall be included in a register maintained under section (Public registers of information) above, without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business, if and so long as the information—

(a)is, in relation to him, commercially confidential; and
(b)is not required to be included in the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (6) below;

but information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section unless it is determined under this section to be so by the enforcing authority or, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.
(2) Where information is furnished to an enforcing authority for the purpose of—

(a) an application for an authorisation or for the variation of an authorisation;
(b) complying with any condition of an authorisation; or
(c) complying with a notice under section 18(2) above;

then, if the person furnishing it applies to the authority to have the information excluded from the register on the ground that it is commercially confidential (as regards himself or another person), the authority shall determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.
(3) Where it appears to an enforcing authority that any information (other than information furnished in circumstances within subsection (2) above) which has been obtained by the authority under or by virtue of any provision of this Part might be commercially confidential, the authority shall—

(a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in the register unless excluded under this section; and
(b) give him a reasonable opportunity—

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the ground that it is commercially confidential; and
(ii) of making representations to the authority for the purpose of justifying any such objection;


and, if any representations are made, the enforcing authority shall, having taken the representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.
(4) Where, under subsection (2) or (3) above, an authority determines that information is not commercially confidential—


(a) the information shall not be entered on the register until the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the determination is notified to the person concerned;
(b) that person may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision;

and, where an appeal is brought in respect of any information, the information shall not be entered on the register pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
(5) Subsections (3), (4) and (9) of section 14 above shall apply in relation to appeals under subsection (4) above.
(6) The Secretary of State may give to the enforcing authorities directions as to specified information, or descriptions of information, which the public interest requires to be included in registers maintained under section (Public registers of information) above notwithstanding that the information may be commercially confidential.
(7) Information excluded from a register shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential for the purposes of this section at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date of the determination by virtue of which it was excluded; but the person who furnished it may apply to the authority for the information to remain excluded from the register on the ground that it is still commercially confidential and the authority shall determine whether or not that is the case.
(8) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall apply in relation to a determination under subsection (7) above as they apply in relation to a determination under subsection (2) or (3) above.
(9) Information is, for the purposes of any determination under this section, commercially confidential, in relation to any individual or person, if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.'

Amendment (a) thereto; to leave out subsection (6).

Government new clause 33—Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security.

Government new clause 34—Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information.

New clause 3—Public rights in relation to pollution—
'( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent lay regulations for the purpose of establishing public rights in relation to the prevention and amelioration of pollution as specified in this section.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby stated that any person may initiate a prosecution for an alleged pollution offence under section 19 below.
(3) Any appeal against a refusal, amendment or revocation of an authorisation under Part I, or against conditions attached to any such authorisation, shall be made to an independent tribunal established by the Secretary of State under this section, which shall include industrial, trade union and environmental representatives and be chaired by an independent person.
(4) The tribunal established under subsection (3) above shall meet in public, hear evidence from any interested person and publish its decisions together with reasons relevant thereto.
(5) Any enforcement authority for the purposes of Part I shall be required by regulations made under this section to make available to any person on request details of analyses and investigations undertaken by it in the exercise of its functions, subject only to payment of such charge as shall be reasonable to cover the cost of reproducing the documents concerned.
(6) Each district authority shall compile and maintain a register open to public inspection of contaminated land in its area in accordance with regulations made under this section.


(7) No information shall he withheld from a public register concerned with pollution on grounds of commercial confidentiality under section 18(2) below for a period longer than two years.'.

Government amendments Nos. 25 and 181 to 193.

Mr. Trippier: I believe that there was a genuine spirit of co-operation as we considered the Bill in Committee. I shall be introducing amendments later today and on Wednesday that are the result of amendments tabled and questions asked by members of both Opposition parties and by Conservative Members. The concept of integrated pollution control—IPC—which for the first time introduces controls over emissions to all three environmental media—air, water and land—at one and the same time, has been welcomed on all sides. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—will be under a duty to ensure that controls over IPC processes deliver the best protection of the environment taken as a whole.
IPC is a radical new measure, which puts us in the forefront of pollution control. Important features include the need for operators to obtain prior authorisation from the enforcing authority and a two-tier control over emissions. That requires, first, that emissions to a particular medium of any substances that are prescribed are prevented or minimised at source, and, secondly, that any emissions of any substances are rendered harmless.
The local authority controls over air pollution represent a significant strengthening of local powers in recognition of the need for effective and speedy control of pollution at the local level. For both those authorities and HMIP, part I provides for a solid system of enforcement, proper powers and tough penalties for operators who break the terms of their authorisations. There is also important provision allowing for public access to information, and that is the principal subject of the new clauses.
I know that public access is a subject which Labour Members will wish to address under new clause 3. Perhaps I should attempt to set the scene for them. The Government have made a substantial commitment to providing public information on the environment, particularly through our very successful "Environment in Trust" leaflets. Our commitment to the principle of public access to environmental information is absolute, and we have recently played a major part in ensuring early agreement in Brussels on a clear, workable directive to ensure this throughout the Community.
I do not think that the Opposition would disagree with me that the Bill makes a substantial contribution to the process of securing the public's role.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Minister referred to Brussels. In the past, we have been dismayed when various measures have been passed by the Community but the enforcement procedures in other countries, which are nothing like as good as ours, have rendered them less effective. Can we be absolutely certain that other countries will be enforcing the measures?

Mr. Trippier: I am satisfied, first, that we ought to agree with all the other member states to move in this direction. We are talking about emissions and emission control and if we do not have adequate enforcement or effective policing throughout the Community, Britain will be put at a competitive disadvantage. I am certain that our enforcement is rigorous under the terms of current legislation and that it will meet the new duties and demands enshrined in the Bill. I am not in a position to

speak for all the member states, but I shall certainly be pressing the point at the meetings that I have to attend at the Council of Ministers, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The provisions governing applications for authorisations or consents under parts I and VI will be widely welcomed. In parts III and IV we have specifically provided for individual citizens to take direct action in the courts if they are aggrieved by nuisance or by defacement by litter. In the latter case, there will be clear, publicly available guidance concerning the standards that local authorities and others can be expected to reach in carrying out their litter duties. Important provisions in the Bill will further increase the amount of environmental information held by pollution control authorities that is available to the public on easily accessible public registers. That is fully in line with our commitment to allow public access to environmental information.
In the new clauses we have provided for the most far reaching and comprehensive system to make information available in Europe. That is not a claim to make lightly, so let us examine it closely. Above all, the system will be easy to use. Members of the public who seek information will be able to walk into the offices of the enforcing authority and find there, not a confusing mass of papers through which they need to trawl, but information on registers which will be well maintained, easy to use, comprehensive and clear. Inspection of the register will be free of charge. That matches any other system of making information available in Europe. But the factor that guarantees that the system of information for which we are providing is truly accessible is that information will be available locally. Information on the register held by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be copied to the local authority where the process is situated. Similarly, information will be sent to local authorities under the provisions of part V and waste management information will be held at the local level by each waste regulation authority under clause 57.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Minister comment on the inadequacies of regulation as they apply in the Wath on Dearne case, in which he has been heavily involved? The regulations that were in force when the waste arrived, and which are still in force, meant that the health authority and the hazardous waste unit were not entitled to know what the composition of the waste was and could not be told that, unless it had a trade name—they were entitled to know the trade name—or the country of origin of the waste. Is the Minister saying that those deficiencies in the law will be removed by the Bill?

Mr. Trippier: I think that they will be removed under other parts of the Bill, although not under this part. I do not know that these provisions governing integrated pollution control and increased public access to environmental information—which both the hon. Gentleman and I seek—would necessarily have helped in this instance. I should underline the fact that we are talking about the licensing of processes. As the hon. Gentleman and I both know, in the case of Wath on Dearne, the major problems arose from the fact that the imported waste was not necessarily toxic by definition. I had better be careful what I say, because I realise that this is one of the many matters that will be discussed in the courts. It was when the imported substance was mixed that it became toxic and


therefore unacceptable. We have tried to deal with such circumstances in other provisions in the Bill that deal with the importation of hazardous waste. The hon. Gentleman may welcome the fact that I have written him yet another letter today to try to keep him up to date with the situation as I understand it as a result of a meeting held in New York in the latter part of last week which followed on from a meeting held in Washington the week before.

Mr. Hardy: Which followed my meeting in Washington.

Mr. Trippier: Exactly.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) agrees that we had a constructive debate in Committee on the subject of registers. I made it clear that I did not expect exemptions from access to information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality to be given lightly and that, when deciding appeals on the matter, the Secretary of State would require cogent and specific evidence to substantiate a claim that disclosure would prejudice to an unreasonable degree someone's commercial interest. It is probably fair to say that clarification was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
When considering clauses 19 and 57, I thought that we could go further and provide more detail on the mechanisms by which information may be excluded from the register. That is achieved by new clauses 12 and 13, for part I of the Bill, and new clauses 33 and 34 for part II. New clauses 12 and 33 provide for information to be omitted from the register on the grounds of national security. New clauses 13 and 34 provide for exclusion on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. New clauses 12 and 33 give effect to the procedures for dealing with national security which formed part of the consultation paper issued in August last year.
In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Dewsbury that I would examine a proposal that exclusions from the register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality should be time limited. That was one of the points that the hon. Lady put to me and I have decided that such exclusions should be time limited. In new clause 13 I have provided that information excluded from a register shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential after four years. If the operator considers that the information remains confidential, he will need to reapply for an exclusion. The enforcing authority will be able to take account of any representations that it receives on the exclusion of that information. That time scale mirrors that to which the enforcing authority will work in reviewing authorisations.
Amendments Nos. 182 to 190 to clause 57 bring the contents and format of the registers in part II on waste disposal into line with those of part I. They increase considerably the amount of information to be kept on the registers and require copies of the relevant parts of the register to be kept at district level.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 provide that registers shall also be kept at local level on information about the import and export of waste in clause 117. That might have a direct bearing on the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). We shall increase public access to the type of information to which he

referred. The difficulty would be in knowing how quickly the details would be placed on the register after the waste had become toxic. My guess is that, as the hon. Gentleman is so alive to what is going on in his constituency, he would be on to the matter before it was put on the register. I question whether the register would help.
We intend that the regulations will provide that copies of all applications to import waste into an area from overseas, or, indeed, to export waste from an area to overseas, will be fully available at district level. That will ensure as never before that the public are kept informed of information in the authority's possession on waste management in the area.
The right hon.Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) has tabled an amendment to delete new clause 13(6). Subsection (6) meets a proposal in our consultation paper last year on public access to information. The paper suggested that, in exceptional circumstances, it would be in the national interest to include information in the register even though its inclusion might prejudice some private interest. For example, if there is a major accident, should we be able to keep the public informed? If that accident occurs overseas and involves a particular technology, should we be able to release information about that operation or that technology in Britain? One operator may be using it and benefiting competitively from it. Should we be able to reveal that information or should we keep people in the dark, so fuelling their fears and suspicions that all the relevant sectors of industry are using that technology?
5.15 pm
We have faced such a difficulty before. After the Chernobyl disaster commercial confidentiality affected the amount of information that we could release. The lack of public information served only to increase public disquiet. I passionately believe that that form of secrecy fuels fear. That is the last thing that Conservative and Opposition Members—certainly in Committee—wished to perpetuate. New clause 13(6) is in effect a reserve power designed to help ensure that there is more scope for providing information should that position ever arise again. Both the right hon. Member for Halton and I hope that it will not.
The additional detail that we decided to provide has necessitated some consequential amendments to clause 19. Taken together with some minor drafting amendments, it seemed sensible to replace the clause with new clause 11.
As I move towards the end of my opening remarks I must give some of my thoughts on the Opposition's new clause 3. I said many times in Committee that I want every person in the country to become an environmental watchdog. I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards facilitating that. This afternoon I can announce that the Bill will further extend the public right of access to information. Following the recommendations of a departmental working group, the Government have decided to place a new duty on district local authorities to compile and maintain registers of the use of potentially contaminated land. I know that that will be welcome news both to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, which considered those issues in its recent report, and to all members of the Standing Committee.
I am delighted to inform the House that the Government intend to introduce an amendment in the Lords to give effect to that proposal. We shall have discussions with the local authority associations on the matter. In those discussions we shall deal only with the practical effects, the timetable and how the proposals will be delivered. I have long accepted the principle. I hope that the local authority associations will not raise objections.
Both Conservative and Opposition Members behaved responsibly in Committee in putting their views to me, which I have completely met. It would not be wise for me to deal with the other subsections of new clause 13. I know that the House awaits with keen interest the comments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Minister for his remarks about the constructive role played by the Opposition in Committee. I also thank him for the limited extent to which he has accepted some of our suggestions and incorporated them in the Government new clauses.
It is a significant breakthrough that the Government have added to the concessions already made a new concession on contaminated land. I am sure that all Opposition Members who were on the Committee welcome the statement that the Minister has just made. We should like further information about how the proposal will work in practice but in principle we are pleased that the Government have accepted the suggestion in our new clause. I hope that the Minister will think again about the other parts of our new clause. They all have the same intention—to make sure that the public are fully aware of what is happening in their area and of any environmental danger or damage caused by industry.
While I welcome much of what the Government have done and of what the Minister has said about access to information, the Government's starting point is somewhat different from ours. Their starting point seems to be that they will determine that certain types of information will be available. Welcome though that is, it is a limited way of placing information in the public domain. The starting point should be that if a member of the public wants to know about a particular point of information that is held by a public body, that information should be made available unless there is a sound reason why it should not be. So we say that all information should be available unless there is a good reason why it should not be, whereas the Government are trying to prescribe specific types of information.
The Government's new clauses are a small step in the right direction, but we have some queries about some of the points in them. First, why has the Minister removed the part of the original clause that said that any conditions attached to an authorisation would be made public in the same way as any details of a licence would be? If conditions are attached to an authorisation, that might show that there are potential problems with the process being carried out in a factory or unit. It seems strange, therefore, that this part has been dropped from the new clause.
My second question relates to a topic that we discussed in Committee. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether the information will be available as raw data or whether summaries of the information will appear on the register. Although it is important that the information be presented in an easily understood form, the basic raw data should also be provided for people who can understand them and

might want to use them to take their case further. It is vital that registers, whether held on computer or in any other form, be produced in an understandable form. The Minister has changed the terminology on that point from that in the original Bill. I wonder why the registers are now to be available in any form, and whether that includes computers or whether the Minister has something else in mind.
Some aspects of access to information still worry us. Many powers still reside with the Secretary of State. If the regulations that the Minister has the power to make are written in an open fashion, which ensures that a great deal of information is available, that will be to the good, but there is nothing in the new clause to suggest that that will happen. I particularly draw the Minister's attention to new clause 11(1)(i), which states that information will include
such other matters relating to the carrying on of prescribed processes or any pollution of the environment caused thereby as may be prescribed".
That is very wide, but what does it mean in practice? Does it mean that all the notes and information provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution when carrying out an inspection will be available; or is it merely a check list to state that a process has been inspected and an authorisation granted? I hope that the Minister will he able to clarify that.
Similarly, with regard to exceptions on the grounds of national security, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the clause could not be used to protect industry when carrying out any process in which there might be a security implication. I hope that it can be used only when the type of pollution to be monitored would constitute a security risk, and I hope that the Minister will tell us as much. The burden of proof should be the other way round; we should alway be sure that the information is available unless there is a proven case against that.
In new clause 3, which is about public rights in relation to pollution, there remain several points that I hope the Minister will look at again. We believe that there is still scope for giving members of the public greater rights to monitor pollution in their areas and to tackle the problems that exist. In particular, we want any person to be able to initiate a prosecution for an alleged pollution offence. We discussed that in Committee. The only area, as the Bill stands, in which such a prosecution would be possible is litter. However, we argue that problems that could arise from the processes described in part I of the Bill could be far more severe and harmful to the environment than the problems in the part on litter. So we do not see why the Government are so resistant to giving people the right of prosecution.
We are concerned because appeals under the IPC will still be decided by the Secretary of State, not by an independent tribunal. We believe that such independent tribunals should be set up, should meet when possible in public and should publish reasons for their decisions. It is not adequate if the Secretary of State writes the regulations, employs the inspectors and then acts as judge and jury when those inspectors make a decision against which an appeal is lodged.
In new clause 3, with the inclusion of our provision on contaminated land, which the Minister has now accepted, we have tried to establish a different framework that will give stronger rights to members of the public, which in turn will give them a better and more constructive role in monitoring the state of the environment. There is a


demand for such powers for people in this country, and I hope that, as the Minister has accepted one of our constructive suggestions, he will go on and be convinced by the others, too.

Mr. Robert Adley: It would be churlish of any of us who sat through the Committee not to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on a tremendous job. It was a huge Bill, and, to judge from the Government new clauses and amendments, it is getting bigger. That is entirely a result of the Government's willingness to listen to arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The trouble with the Bill is that one could make virtually any speech when discussing any part of it, so in order not to weary the House by continually repeating the speeches that many of us made at some length in Committee, I want to make but a few remarks that I made in Committee some weeks ago.
My comments revolve around the questions: what is pollution, what is the environment and what is "prescribed"? My hon. Friend the Minister has made an important new announcement, which, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) rightly pointed out, under new clause 11(1)(i) concerns
such other matters relating to the carrying on of prescribed processes",
and which further enhances and enlarges the Bill.
I am worried about what is left out of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister knows perfectly well that some weeks ago in Committee I bored him and wearied colleagues with endless references to aircraft noise and vehicle emissions. I do not believe that any Government who hope to find an answer to the serious environmental problems that face this country can do so by bringing forward a Bill that precludes two of our major sources of environmental pollution. I know that we are to have a White Paper in due course, and I hope that some time before we finish Report stage my hon. Friend or the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what steps the Government propose to take to include aircraft noise and vehicle emissions in that White Paper, and the timetable that they envisage for dealing with them. I tabled a written question to the Department of Transport about environmental factors in that Department's investment criteria. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied:
Environmental factors, where relevant, are fully taken into account when reaching decisions, although in general it is difficult to place monetary values on environmental effects."—[Official Report, 23 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 56.]
5.30 pm
We all understand that and also understand that clean air and peace and quiet are precious commodities that will cost a great deal if those of us who are concerned about such things are to achieve our ambitions. We all know that Third Reading takes place late at night, sometimes at 4 o'clock in the morning when everyone wants to get home. I hope that before Third Reading—either today or on Wednesday—my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will reply to my points.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I should like to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 13. I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy and thoroughness in referring in

his opening speech to that amendment, how he regards it and the reason for subsection (6) being included in the Bill. My amendment comes from the chemical industry via the Chemical Industries Association. As the Minister knows, I have a considerable constituency interest in that industry.
The chemical industry is acutely sensitive to pollution and to the effect of its production processes on the environment. It is also probably the industry that is most acutely aware of confidentiality and the possibility of competitor companies taking trade secrets from a public register, thereby taking away business. A great deal of industrial espionage remains to be prevented in the chemical industry, not only in Britain but throughout the world. The industry is therefore rightly concerned that subsection (6) seems to give the Minister overweening power. I have no desire to press the amendment to a Division because the Minister has explained to my satisfaction how very rare would be the use of subsection (6). The industry is quite happy with the clause except for subsection (6). It considers that subsection (9), on the judgment of what is or is not confidential and in the overwhelming interest of the company, would suffice.
The Minister referred to an overseas accident. I understand his anxiety about that because Chernobyl and Bhopal are relevant to the chemical industry. Such accidents could lead him to say that information on an accident abroad arising from a process that was in use in this country should be placed on the register, so that the Minister and especially the public were aware that the process was in operation in a specific industry and at a specific place.
I shall certainly not vote against the Bill or press my amendment, but I should like to ask whether the Minister thinks that he is taking a gigantic sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut. I doubt whether he would need to bring the attention of the industry to a foreign accident because the industry would be aware of it. However, if he did he would do so by telling the industry concerned that the process that had caused the horrendous accident was unsure and unsafe. In the overwhelming number of cases the industry, for its own sake, would ensure that the process was not used in this country unless it was considerably modified. I find it difficult to envisage a case in which the Minister would have to go all the way by issuing a direction that the information should be placed on the public register and that he would do so without any discussion with the industry concerned, although I am sure that such discussion would take place.
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations. They certainly modify my view because I accept the purpose behind what he says. As I have said, the chemical industry will be a little alarmed at the overweening nature of the Minister's powers contained in subsection (6). If it could be done in a smoother way in another place, it might assuage some of the fears of the chemical industry.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The Bill is about protecting the environment and preserving the balance of nature. It could and should seek to achieve a balance between the needs of man and the needs of the environment. Last Wednesday when we went to the Carlton club to hear the United States ambassador he quoted words from Chief Seattle to guide our environmental consciousness. He said:
Teach your children what we have taught our children: tell them that the earth is their mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth.


Those of us who live in the north-east of England next to the North sea and the chemical-producing area of Teesside enjoy some of the most beautiful countryside in Europe. Our people want to see proper safeguards for the protection of our land, sea and air. At the same time, the people of this nation depend on the chemical industry to supply the materials for their everyday lives. As well as being the leading production area for plastics, fertilisers, paints and metal treatments, Teesside produces chemicals, especially in my constituency, to make parts of our cars, household appliances, radios, electronics, paints—whether yellow lines or white pigment—oils for fuel and lubrication, plastic bags, sheeting and polythene shapes.
Not only industry makes direct use of strong chemicals. Throughout the length and breadth of our land people use bleach and varnish remover, paint solvents, antiseptics and disinfectants, weed killers and pesticides. We must protect mother earth, but we do not need to renounce those things to do it. However, we must achieve the right balance between what is necessary and what is possible in a reasonable time scale and what is desirable but unnecessary.
New clauses 11, 12 and 13 deal with public rights to information. Surely what is necessary to protect the environment is the control of emissions from factories and chemical plants. Control over a process is unnecessary unless it is to protect public health and safety in the plant itself. Conditions placed on the amount and type of substances produced or utilised do not relate directly to the effect of the process on the environment. Conditions placed on the nature of emissions should be sufficient. It is likely that with large amounts of technical information available publicly, British chemical producers might lose their commercial secrets and thus their competitive edge. The Government go further in placing unreasonable burdens on industry by permitting such information to be used in proceedings because new clause 41 states:
it shall be for the accused to prove that there was no better available technique not entailing excessive cost".
In the United States 85 per cent. of the inquiries about registered processes are made by competitor companies. The Minister's reply to that may be that anyone representing a chemical-producing area would say that, wouldn't he. The chemical industry supports the principle of much greater public access to information under integrated pollution control. The industry regards that as essential to the maintenance of public confidence. However, it is still unclear how the system proposed by the Government will work in practice.
The change in the underlying premise away from controlling waste streams could have a potentially devastating effect on the chemical industry. The speciality chemical sector is a strong case in point. In general, products are made on a relatively small scale and utilise various types of equipment in different combinations. The success of these operations and other chemical operations depends on technical skills, ingenuity in adapting processes and, above all, speed of response to inquiries from customers. Undue constraints and permissions on process changes would make it impossible to maintain the competitive edge.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the United Kingdom chemical industry contributes £2 billion to the national trade balance and is the top export earner among United Kingdom manufacturing industries. The only way that the new clause can work and not damage the industry

is if the regulations and directions recognise the need for speed and flexibility in assessing and responding to applications from industry rapidly to change their process.
The people of Teesside should he alarmed by the increasingly anti-chemical industry tone of many campaigners who give partial information in support of their ends. The provisions of the Bill, and in particular these new clauses, in some ways go too far in meeting the criticisms of the anti-industry lobby. It is possible to be pro-environment and pro-industry. Those with whom I have contact in the chemical industry are concerned about protecting the environment. As one specialist chemical engineer told me, "We have been worrying about the environment for 25 years, and doing something about it."
Let me take a few examples. Twenty years ago, we had terrible smogs in Teesside. That was before the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) came to Teesside. Those smogs smelt of rotten eggs, and if the wind blew the wrong way from Redcar, the whole area would be covered in a big, white, foul-smelling cloud. Thanks to changes in ammonia-process technology, and the introduction of the Clean Air Act 1956—a Conservative measure—the smogs disappeared for ever.
Secondly, ICI's pollution of the River Tees has improved to the extent that there has been a 90 per cent. reduction in the effluent flowing into the river. Thirdly, Harcros Chemicals, in my constituency, recently won an environmental award for energy conservation and clean processing.
Industry wants to be as open as possible with information for the public, but openness has to be restricted, as subsection (9) of the new clause provides, in the relatively small number of instances where public availability, which includes availability to the company's competitors, of a particular trade secret or other confidential process information, would significantly damage the company's commercial interest.

Mr. Richard Holt: Is not four years a particularly short period, given that the research that goes into many of the chemicals that are subsequently produced is three, four and possibly five times as long? Would not it pay competitors to wait until the four-year period was up?

Mr. Devlin: I agree with my hon. Friend. We had no idea that my hon. Friend the Minister would make a further announcement on this subject today, but I know that the protection of patents and of process secrets, which are sometimes developed over 20 or 30 years, is an extremely important matter, and one which the nation, and a chemical-producing area such as Teesside, should take seriously.
Subsection (9) rightly makes the test for exclusion the prejudice "to an unreasonable degree" to the commercial interest of the company. That allows the enforcing authorities or the Secretary of State not only to reject claims where they regard the degree of prejudice to be purely minimal, but, when there is real prejudice, to make a judgment on whether the prejudice is or is not unreasonable when balanced against factors favouring disclosure, such as the wider public interest. The industry supports the principle underlying that subsection, but has some reservations about the way in which the new clause has been brought forward.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of the new provision on poisoned land, but I am worried about the


Opposition's proposition in new clause 3 that anybody should have the right to bring a prosecution. Such a proposition has three significant weaknesses. First, in many cases prosecution will be brought by competitor companies. As I have said, 85 per cent. of inquiries about registered processes in the United States are made by other companies. It would be possible for competitor companies to use such a prosecution to delay development of competitor products. Secondly, the provision would place an unnecessary burden on management. It would not only have to cope with the burden of proof being against it but would be faced with an endless stream of prosecutions and the attendant legal costs. Thirdly, some supposedly reputable environmental groups can be irresponsible and might use prosecution as a media tool.
5.45 pm
For example, let us take The Observer headlines not long ago over polluted chemical pits, one of which is in Eaglescliffe in my constituency. Everybody in Teesside had known about this for a long time, but the report published by Friends of the Earth, showing that there were chemical pits near residential areas and implying that they were unmonitored and that anybody could go in and die of the resulting pollution, was misleading. All that would be necessary to damage a company would be for a number of prosecutions to be set up. One can see the headlines—"Hundreds of writs issued against X company." It would be simple to engineer that. It would make a nice media headline, but would lead to a sudden and dramatic collapse for any publicly quoted company. I urge the Government to look carefully at their new clauses.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point about the competitive edge being given to one chemical company on Teesside as opposed to another. However, in view of his worries about unfair disclosure, what will he do to solve the problem that the River Tees is the most polluted river in England?

Mr. Devlin: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. She obviously did not hear me earlier when I said that ICI had engineered a 90 per cent. reduction in the level of pollution in the Tees over the past 10 years. That is significant, because, while all hon. Members are concerned about the level of pollution—particularly those of us who live near to chemical plants—the companies operating in such areas are concerned themselves. One after another, they have put in place changes to processes that have brought about significant improvements to the local environment. Had she listened to my speech with a little more care, the hon. Lady might have had her point answered before she made it.

Ms. Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I came into the Chamber the minute I saw that he was speaking; I do not want to miss a word of wisdom that falls from his lips. ICI has made changes to decrease the pollution of the Tees. The hon. Gentleman suggested that other chemical companies have spent money on improving the River Tees. Would he like to name them?

Mr. Devlin: I should need a little more notice of that question, but I am sure that a number of companies are taking measures. Harcros Chemicals, in my constituency, is a good example. It is reducing its discharges into the

River Tees. As the hon. Lady knows, an important Bill before the House deals with a barrage for the River Tees. If it is passed, there will be a new area of clean water above the barrage and there will not be the same tidal flushing effect below the barrage, so that the environmental standards demanded for the river by the National Rivers Authority—the new environmental body established by the Government to protect the safety of our rivers—will be achieved. I know that many on Teesside are concerned about pollution in the River Tees and will be glad to hear the assurance that something is being done about it.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at the effect that the new clause will have and at its potential effect on the chemical producing industry, which is an important industry. I urge the House to reject the Opposition's new clause 3.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: At times, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) sounded like an apologia. He should beware of suggesting that some of the issues are merely media hypes. I represent communities that were told that coal tips on mountain sides were safe. Despite the experts and so-called professional knowledge, they turned out not to be safe. The price of preserving our environment is eternal vigilance. Complacency can have no part to play in our arguments and discussions on these issues.

Mr. Devlin: I hope that the tenor of my remarks did not suggest that I am complacent about these matters. I tried to say in my short speech that industry has addressed itself to many of the problems. I welcome the new provisions in the Bill for public information, but I urge the Government not to go too far with them.

Mr. Rowlands: I did not have the great privilege of being a member of the Committee that considered the Bill in detail; it is obvious that its consideration was constructive. I support the principle and spirit of new clause 3, which deals with pollution and public rights. That issue cannot be better illustrated than by describing to the House what has happened on a site in the Rhymney valley on the banks of the River Rhymney which is only yards away from a school and below a major road. Euromet Ltd., a company from the south of England, has established what the Health and Safety Executive described to me in a letter as a
Waste solvent transit storage facility".
One of the qualities of debates such as this is the jargon that goes behind them. Acronyms pour out of every paragraph and page of discussion.
The storage facility is a site for 7,000 drums of toxic waste. That is the HSE's description. The drums have been placed on a site which was once occupied by an undertaking that created hundreds of skilled jobs for the Hymac company that were at the heart of the Rhymney community. This large site—it has been classified as an industrial site—is now filled with 7,000 canisters or drums of so-called paint-stripping solvents or toxic waste.
The public knew nothing about the arrival or delivery of the drums because planning permission was not required. When I raised the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales during Question Time this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman said that planning powers could be exercised. In fact, they could not be, because the drums have been placed within an industrial site. It appears that


under existing law a company from the south of England can deliver 7,000 drums containing toxic waste in the absence of any planning permission requirements.
There is virtually no security round the site. Photographs taken by local residents show that some of the drums are leaking. It is clear that they are rusty and not in good condition. There is confusion about the content of the drums. I sought the advice of the HSE and was not altogether reassured by its response. It seems that it has inspected the site on three or four occasions and has advised the company to improve
the segregation of chlorinated solvents and flammable materials.
In other words, retrospective conditions are being submitted to the company following the arrival of the drums. No public information was made available so that the delivery of the drums could be discussed. As I have said, the site is on the bank of the Rhymney and close to a school and a road. It appears that the HSE listed a number of conditions apart from the segregation of chlorinated solvents and flammable materials.
The HSE has informed me that it does not believe that the site represents a serious problem or hazard to local health. It is relevant to our debate, however, that the conditions that are now being sought to be established by the executive, and by the local authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, are retrospective. The drums have already been placed on the site, and neither the company nor the professionals—the HSE—has had to justify the development of the site as a transit storage facility for waste solvents. There has been no consultation, no public inquiry and no local hearing. There was no opportunity for objectors to present a case. As I have said, none of the activities that are being carried out on the site is subject to any form of planning permission.
The argument that we are advancing in the new clause has real justification. We must strengthen public rights in relation to pollution and the dumping of waste in our communities, especially by companies from outside Wales of which we know nothing. Presumably these companies are facing increasing problems in the areas and communities where they are based. Surely we are justified in seeking rights of consultation and approval to enable individuals and communities to oppose or object to activities of the sort that are taking place on the bank of the Rhymney.
The local authority tells me that it can do nothing more than issue a licence to control the pollution that will result from the site being used as a
waste solvent transit storage facility".
It can do nothing more than limit the damage that has already occurred, and it seems that its rights to take even that action are tightly constrained. It is the overwhelming wish of the Rhymney community, and of the valley community as a whole, that the operation should cease. It creates no jobs and it will not enhance the local environment. Indeed, its effect on the environment and the development of the community will be exactly the opposite. It is against that background that the local authority claims—I am not sure where the law stands on these matters—that it can do nothing more than issue a licence to control or limit the company's activity. That is unsatisfactory. I hope that we shall take a much more rigid, genuine and powerful line against such behaviour.
I have the privilege to represent communities that for 150 years have suffered uncontrolled physical dereliction.

There have been coal tips and waste slags all around our homes. They were positioned as near as possible to the works. That is no longer the policy, but, as I have said, we have spent 150 years picking up the bill or the tab. That has been the misfortune of the local communities. It was my privilege as a Welsh Office Minister to initiate and implement the derelict land reclamation programme in the late 1960s, and I am glad that successive Governments have continued with it. It has been the public, however, or the nation that have had to pick up the tab. A huge price has had to be paid to try to put right historical neglect and physical dereliction.
We are now recreating a green society. The Secretary of State for Wales preaches through his Heads of the Valley initiative that we must diversify our commercial and industrial activities so that we can enter the new age. The last thing that the communities of Rhymney and Merthyr Tydfil want is a new form of pollution. We do not want companies that are based hundreds of miles away dumping their wastes in our community; we have spent 150 years coping with waste and low-paid jobs. Instead, we want increased economic and industrial activity in our communities. We are not willing in a new era to become a new dumping ground for industrial waste from other societies and communities. The 1990s will be our decade, just as green is the byword for the Winchesters, Chichesters and other communities that enjoy pleasant and green countryside.
The principles for which we have argued are illustrated in the example that I have given to the House of what can happen, even in the 1990s. Euromet has brought an unwanted activity to the Rhymney valley. We reject it and we hope that Euromet will accept that it is an unwelcome visitor with an unwelcome commercial activity. We do not want waste solvent transit storage facilities; we do want the power to reject Euromet.

6 pm

Mr. George Walden: I congratulate the Government on introducing a Bill which is welcome on both sides of the House. In particular, from a constituency interest, I welcome the stringent waste disposal proposals that tighten the regulations on the technical competence of those involved, and ensure that they are financially sound and have no previous convictions for illicit waste disposal activities. However, for those threatened with waste disposal holes in the ground next to their homes or near to their villages or towns, the fact that those stinking holes will be operated more efficiently is scant consolation. Their aim is not to have waste disposal so close to human habitation at all. That already happens in my constituency at Calvert and, even worse, further proposals arise month after month. Indeed, during the past few months, near the villages of Chackmore, Great Brickhill, Bierton and Mursley there have been proposals for waste disposal, for sand and gravel extraction or for both.
Gravel extraction can be a hideous environmental process, but it is not covered in the Bill. I understand that the reason for that, as for the non-inclusion of the location of waste disposal tips, is that they will be covered in future legislation on planning. Surely it is impossible to isolate one issue from the other. People will not be satisfied with regulations improving something that they do not want anyway. The Government should carefully consider making it statutorily impossible to locate waste disposal


dumps close to human habitation. However efficient the Bill may be in curtailing illicit activities, there will still be the problem of smells carried on the prevailing wind, which the Government cannot hope to control if the dumps are too close to villages, small towns or larger built up areas.
The same applies, although without the smells, to gravel pits. I hope that the Government will not lose sight of the need to tighten the whole planning regime. There is an arbitrary and mechanistic regime under which each county council is required to produce a certain amount of gravel for its needs. That might make a neat regime, but it takes no account of the actual location of the gravel pit in a county. My constituency experience is that for some geological reason—I am not an expert—gravel appears to crop up close to human habitation. Villagers are often offered the choice between a future unwanted residual lake and, in the case of waste disposal, methane or other unwelcome products oozing from the ground close to their homes. I hardly need to emphasise the environmental damage and the damage to property values in the interim.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will not rest on their well-deserved laurels but will tighten the whole regime, and especially the regulations on the siting of waste disposal and gravel pits.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will forgive me if I do not follow his observations on gravel pits. He was right to pursue his constituency interests. Indeed, I propose briefly to pursue mine.
The House has previously heard about the problem of toxic waste in Wath upon Dearne. Indeed, following the presentation of a motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and other constituency neighbours, it was suggested that I brought one of the 4,200 drums of toxic waste to the House. Conservative Members were not pleased by that suggestion. I sought the advice of Mr. Speaker, who expressed the hope that I would do no such thing. You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not, even though the temptation was strong. Had I chosen to do so, it would have met with the approval of many of my constituents.
I thank the Minister, with whom I have discussed this serious and complex problem on a number of occasions, for the time that he has spent on this matter. The problem is that the current regulations and law are unsatisfactory. Given the possible litigation that may ensue, if the Minister finds that within the next few weeks the Bill does not adequately close the loopholes to which I referred when he kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech, I hope that he will consider introducing amendments in another place to remedy that.
For almost a year my constituency has suffered a serious problem—not the 7,000 drums referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), but 2,400 drums of material that was not drummed when it arrived but was left open. It was supposed to be copper hydroxide sludge waste. It was later found to be contaminated, which caused enormous anxiety to local residents. I live only one mile from the site and I took part in a public meeting that was the largest, angriest and most excited that I can recall in my long political career both nationally and in south Yorkshire.

The anxiety was eased by the Government's action, at my request, to ensure that the material was contained. However, it is still there and the anxiety persists.
The House knows that I have been interested in green issues for a long time. The problem with this sort of case is that it makes recycling a dirty word. Most of us accept that as we use the world's resources recycling becomes more and more a necessity. It is equally a necessity to ensure that industry is properly regulated and operated. If the Bill helps to ensure that public anxiety is allayed by the proper conduct of an essential industry, it will be an important contribution. Until the industry is properly run and supervised, and operates against a background of adequate legislation that closes the absurd loopholes we encountered last year in Wath upon Dearne, there will be cause for anxiety.
I do not want to say much more about that incident because it may be regarded as sub judice. However, may I correct a remark made by the Minister when he responded to my earlier intervention. He said that the material concerned was later identified as being toxic. If the Minister checks, he will find that it is toxic in British law but not toxic under American law, provided that it is exported from America. If the material remains in America, it is deemed to be toxic, but ceases to be so when it leaves that country.
That leads me to argue that if it is reasonable and right to seek proper laws and adequate regulations in respect of the chemical disposal industry in our own country, we are not serving the cause of common sense if we fail to make a positive and vigorous response to international control. It is absurd for the United States to observe one law in respect of chemicals that remain there and another for chemicals that it exports. It is equally absurd that we are prepared to go along with an international regime that allows such a preposterous situation to exist.
As the immediate past chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee, I should like to think that the Government will give an absolute assurance that all international instruments, particularly the Basle convention, will be fully implemented by the United Kingdom. I also hope that the Government will ensure, as a matter of priority, that the arrangements made within the EEC are extended to a wider international basis. As the Minister accepts, and as some of my hon. Friends made clear, we are dealing here not only with a national problem but with an international problem which requires a proper and vigorous international response.

Mr. Holt: I declare two interests: as the chairman of a company on Teesside, and as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, whose members would want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for at long last introducing provisions for which the Select Committee has argued for a very long time.
It is gratifying to note that the Bill even includes a provision covering contaminated land. Perhaps it is worth placing on record that, when the Environment Select Committee decided for the first time to investigate contaminated land some months ago, the Department issued a press release on the subject for the first time in living memory. Also, as the Select Committee stimulated a degree of action, it is not fair of the Opposition to take all


the credit for new clause 11(6), because that emanates from the work of hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) spoke about the chemical industry and the four-year period of confidentiality, which really is not long enough. As someone with a brief experience of the industry, I can tell the House that research often takes a very long time to complete and is costly. If, at the end of the day, the manufacturer finds that the return will not be sufficient, that research will not be undertaken and jobs will not come here.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister carefully to reconsider new clause 11. The chemical industry brings vast amounts of money into this country. Last week a company of which I am chairman, MTM plc, won an export award for the second or third year running in recognition of the extent to which its efforts have contributed to the amount of money that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to play with. My company has also recently bought six companies in America. I say that to indicate the global nature of the chemical industry. It has also bought two companies in Austria, which we shall use to develop the potential market in eastern Europe. Expertise and knowledge are not confined by the waters of the North sea and English channel. One can export them all round the world very satisfactorily.
If the Government are slow to understand what they are being told, then they are missing a golden opportunity. They ought to ask the chemicals industry what is a reasonable and viable time for research so that the Bill can leave this House with the support of everyone concerned.
6.15 pm
As to the Opposition's suggestion that individuals should be allowed to pursue prosecutions, I hardly need remind my hon. Friend the Minister and all right hon. and hon. Members of the number of constituents who often frequent our surgeries with all sorts of notions. If one were to open the door to litigation without any form of pre-sifting, as the Opposition's new clause 3(2) suggests, one would be creating a lawyer's paradise. The chemicals industry would disappear from this country because there would be no purpose in establishing a company here and then finding that all one's chief executives and money were being devoted to defending fruitless and wasteful litigation. The Government should give serious consideration to the way in which prosecutions can be brought by people having a genuine grievance.
The Bill is rather like the curate's egg. Of course it is good, but it is bad in its omissions. It fails to address the point that has been made time and again by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, that there should be a national waste disposal policy, and that it should not be left to local authorities to make up their minds on the basis of planning applications, which will anyway be NIMBY'd back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I am against strict planning controls almost as a matter of personal philosophy—

Ms. Mowlam: indicated assent.

Mr. Holt: —as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) knows. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), unpopular

planning propositions will be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, it will be far better if the Environment Select Committee's suggestion for a national waste disposal plan is accepted by the Government. That would ensure not only that Teesside, which creates much of the waste in manufacturing products that everyone else uses, but all parts of the country take responsibility for a share of waste disposal in years to come. The Government should address the problem properly and not hide behind the situation in which they currently find themselves.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate has been interesting because hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome registers of information and public access to them and agree that new clause 11 is needed. It has revealed also how much more work remains to be done. I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that the environment cannot be properly protected unless the planning process is designed with that aim in mind. It remains one of the most effective weapons for protecting our environment.
I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have long argued that matters concerning the disposal of chemical or nuclear waste, or the construction of nuclear power stations, should be the subject of a full public inquiry to determine general strategy. Thereafter one can deal with specific details in the area in question, given the general macrodecisions.
I was not involved in the Committee because before Easter I was responsible for education. Over Easter I was recycled and I returned to the House to look after green issues for my party. I welcome that responsibility and I am pleased to find that the climate has changed in the years since I last undertook it and that people are falling over themselves to be greener than the rest.
I welcome the new clause and the Minister's announcement that there will be a duty to compile a register of contaminated land. I and my colleagues have campaigned for that for a long time. In areas where there is land development, if people think there may be some contamination it is a matter of concern and it is right and proper that we should have scientific evidence.
I take a somewhat different view from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who spoke earlier. The presumption should be in favour of the public having the information. Although in theory the idea of everyone having the right to prosecute is wonderful, in practice it is probably a good idea that there is a set process, such as when one applies for a judicial review, so that the starting point for a case is established. I take the point that the little person does not stand much chance against a large company, but there are plenty of little people with fairly cranky ideas who could occupy the courts for a long time.
I have some anxieties about the Bill. I am not yet satisfied that the Government understand that the best way to protect the environment is to maximise the amount of information given to people. Education is the best means of environmental protection.
The new clause gives the Secretary of State a let-out power. Certain confidential information will be excluded from registers. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but we still do not know what would prejudice to an "unreasonable degree" the interests of the individual. I am not persuaded that a decision by the Secretary of State,


whoever that may be, would be impartial and would be the best decision, based on a balance between the right to know and commercial interests. That is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South.
My colleagues and I do not think that one can argue against freedom of information on environmental matters by saying that it might harm competition. The market economy has to take second place to the environment, not first place. When it comes to the crunch one cannot say that industry can be allowed to play its competitive games, although I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton, South represents the chemical industry in Stockton and I know of the contribution that that industry makes in the north-east. However, the environment must come before the rights of corporations and their profit. Only then will corporate activity in Britain become environmentally acceptable.

Mr. Devlin: Surely if one seeks to protect the environment what matters is what comes out of the factory, whether it comes out through the floor, the roof or into the local river. The Bill seeks to control every aspect of the production process and make it publicly available. Most of that information will be used by competitor companies. That is not necessary for the protection of the environment.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that point, but it is not true that the information will be principally put to that use. It is right that people should be able to monitor what a private enterprise—be it a large or a small company—or an individual is doing rather than risk a process causing environmental problems. It is a question not only whether the product and any discharges are environmentally safe and publicly acceptable but whether the process is safe from beginning to end. One of the lessons that we have learnt from the nuclear industry here and in Russia is that often it is the process and not the product which is dangerous.

Mr. Devlin: Surely that objection can be overcome by providing the public with information on all the emissions from a plant. The internal workings of the plant could be monitored by the Health and Safety Executive for the protection of the people working there. There is no need for information on the entire process to be made available to the public.

Mr. Hughes: Of course the process is relevant. However, this is a detailed debate and we do not have time to go into that issue. The Health and Safety Executive has a role to ensure that the process is safe for the work force and for the community. Two of the criticisms levelled by the Opposition are that health and safety control mechanisms are depleted and there are not sufficient resources and people to do the job. However, there is another element, which is to ensure that the process and the product are environmentally safe. That does not mean that everyone has to know details of every single nut, tool and lathe used in the process, but there needs to be a framework for access to information.
Another important point is that there must be access to publicly held information. I fear that because the Government are privatising so many processes, people cannot get at information that was previouly available.

For example, we often ask questions in the House about the energy industry and we are told that we cannot have ministerial answers because it is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. However, if one asks the CEGB one does not get the information because the barriers go up. That is a dangerous trend. If there is to be an increasing number of privatised Government agencies rather than Government Departments, we must guard against the danger that we will not have access to information that we had access to in the past.

Mr. Devlin: The biggest cover-up that ever took place in process technology was in the nuclear industry when it was in the public sector. Surely the whole thrust of the Bill and of the privatisation of the electricity industry was to meet the hon. Gentleman's objections and to put that information into the public sector.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the remedy would have been to have a freedom of information Act a long time ago, as they have in other countries. Then we would know what goes on in the public's name and in the public sector. Then the secrecy, which is manifest and accepted in the nuclear industry, would not continue and all those things that have happened to the detriment of scientific knowledge and the environment would have been prevented.
I have two main anxieties, because the Minister should realise that there is a long way to go. The first is about ozone at ground level, which is accepted as a health hazard. In August 1989 the Department of the Environment issued a press release entitled, "Low-level ozone—Goverment makes information available." The first paragraph was:
A special daily summary of low-level ozone concentrations around the country will be available from the Department of the Environment for the rest of the summer.
In March this year an incident occurred but no information was forthcoming from the Department. People in Sussex noticed a high incidence of ozone and its effects on particular plants at ground level. I recently asked why no announcement was made. I had the following honest and wonderful answer from the Minister:
In accordance with the Department's news release of 3 August 1989, information on ozone levels occurring on 17 and 18 March and also on 31 March and 1 April was available from the Department's press office the morning of the day after the episode commenced. No journalist asked for this summary."—[Official Report, 24 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 121.]
Therefore, in a Kafkaesque fashion, only if one knew that something had happened could one could ask about it. Unless one knew, one could never find out. That is not how freedom of information should work. The purpose of a freedom of information Act and open government is that one is given the information. One ought not to have to hope that one will get it if one asks the right question at the right time.
Secondly, there is still no public right to access to information in relation to the data used to justify authorisation of pesticides—both old ones and more recently authorised ones. Ministers have power to make the data available, but there is no public right to that information. Although the regulations stipulate that data relating to new approvals can be seen on request at the registration department—that is, the Department of Health—by anyone with good cause, when the Friends of the Earth asked recently for that information it was told that it could not have it; even if it could see it, it could not


photocopy that information. That is not an open society. Information about the environment is not being made available.
The Government's new clause and the Minister's announcement are to be welcomed, but we are still a long way from an open information society. Until we have such a society, we shall not have the best protected environment that both this country and the world as a whole yearn for increasingly every day.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: It may help the Minister if I say that the Opposition Front Bench do not intend to intervene in the debate. Furthermore, the Opposition do not intend to press new clause 3 to a Division.
We welcome the Government's new clauses. It has been said more than once that we are grateful for the way in which the Bill has been dealt with throughout its passage through the House, particularly in Committee. Parliament was then at its best. The approach to the debates was positive. The Government responded to criticism and constructive proposals from all sides. The result is the many Government amendments and new clauses. The Minister may be reflecting on the fact that if the Government had adoped the same approach two years ago when the Local Government Finance Bill was being considered, they would not be faced with some of the difficulties that confront them now.
Subsection (8) of new clause 11 illustrates the fact that the Government have responded positively to a point that I made in Committee. It states:
For the purpose of enabling the National Rivers Authority to discharge its duty under section 117(1)(f) of the Water Act 1989 to keep corresponding particulars in registers under that section, the chief inspector shall furnish the Authority with the particulars contained in any register maintained by him under this section.
That covers a deficiency in the Bill. We welcome the Government's response to that point.

Mr. Adley: I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the mood and spirit of the Committee's proceedings. On reflection, therefore, does he agree with me that the Opposition's opposition to the water privatisation proposals should reflect the fact that the creation of the National Rivers Authority resulted, in the first case in which it took action against a major company, in a fine of £1 million being levied on that company? On reflection, does he agree with me that on that occasion the Opposition were not always right?

Mr. Pike: No. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), but he fails to recognise that at every stage of the water privatisation proceedings we supported the creation of a National Rivers Authority. However, we believe that the water industry should not have been privatised. The National Rivers Authority was created after a unanimous recommendation by the Select Committee. The Opposition supported its creation on every possible occasion. We queried whether it would be given sufficient powers and funding, but we fully supported its creation and we recognise that it is doing good work. We hope that good work will continue and that the NRA will he provided with additional powers and resources, should they be required, to enable it to fulfil its

functions. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to intervene on that point. He may have thought that he was being helpful, but he was not particularly helpful.
Although there have been positive debates, it would be wrong to say that there has been no disagreement. The Opposition believe that the Government ought to go further, in particular on access to information. At the beginning of her speech my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made the point, which was echoed, although in different words, by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that the Opposition approach the issue of access to information on the presumption that the public have a right to that information. The Government approach the issue frorn the other direction. It is an important difference of approach. The Government ought to think again about the issue and make further concessions in the other place. We believe that the public have a right to know.
On commercial confidentiality, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred to the period of four years. The Minister said that if a request were made towards the end of the four-year period to extend it, the request would be considered—that the four-year period is not finite. New clause 3 proposes a shorter period—that no information shall be withheld from a public register concerned with pollution for a period longer than two years.

Mr. Holt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board my point that it is not a question of there being a review at the end of four years. It is that if, before any commercial undertaking began the exercise, there was the slightest risk that at the end of the four years the investment would be jeopardised, it would not necessarily make the investment, with the result that those jobs and that work would go overseas.

Mr. Pike: We discussed all these points at great length in Committee. We need to achieve a balance.
The Minister made an important statement about contaminated land. I had intended to argue that there should be a register of contaminated land, but the Minister has said that a register will be created. However, I remind the Minister of the Select Committee's report. I served on that Committee, as did several other hon. Members who are in the Chamber. The report referred to the type of register that should be created. Paragraph (5) states:
We recommend that the Government bring forward legislation to lay on local authorities a duty to seek out and compile registers of contaminated land. We consider that registers should be developed using common methodology which should be speedily refined and published by the DOE. Additionally the local authorities should use compatible computer hardware and software in compiling their registers to facilitate transfer to the DOE.
I hope that the Minister will take that recommendation into account when he formulates his proposals. I hope that he appreciates that I refer to that point only because he did not specify exactly how he intends to deal with it.
The hon. Members for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), for Langbaurgh and for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to subsection (2) of new clause 3 which deals with the right of members of the public to prosecute. That is a difficult issue. The Opposition do not believe that anyone should be able, for malicious, trivial or unnecessary reasons, to prosecute. However, if the authority is to be responsible for ensuring that there is no pollution and that


our environment is protected, we want the Bill to include a backstop that will give the public the right and the genuine ability to take action where appropriate.
We were not intending to provide a finite proposal, but the Government have not got it right. The public should be protected. I am not talking about protecting industry or anything else; I am talking about protecting the people of this country. If the public believe that those who have a duty to perform on their behalf are failing in that duty, they should have the right to take legal action themselves. That is the spirit in which we are proposing subsection (2) of new clause 3.

Mr. Trippier: I shall be brief, but in all cases I shall attempt to reply to the pertinent points that have been made in this interesting debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the way in which they welcomed my initial statement about the register that is to be compiled by district authorities.
The hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked me to elucidate that point. I am certain that they will welcome the fact that the register will be compiled along the lines suggested by the Select Committee. Part of the discussions and negotiations with the local authority associations will relate to the detail of that. We estimated and gave evidence to the Select Committee to the effect that it would cost half a person a year—I love those terms—to compile the register. I cannot imagine how that could be done, but that was accepted by the Select Committee. The problem is not so much the compilation of the register, as its upkeep and updating. Nevertheless, do it we will. I am not only committed to the principle, but will ensure that the provisions are set in statute in the form of an amendment to be moved in the House of Lords. I am grateful to the House for its welcome for that.
The second main point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury was about the ability of an individual to begin legal proceedings against a company that had offended in some way or had breached the conditions that are outlined in the Bill. We dealt with that proposition at some length in Committee, but I underline once again the fact that that facility is already available to individuals. Such prosecutions are not unknown because, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows well as a lawyer, such action is within the ability and the power of the individual. Quite honestly, I do not want to interfere with that and nor should I because if such a right is vested in the individual we avoid the difficulties that were encountered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We had what was at times a lively discussion on that point in Committee. Of course, we always welcome such discussions. When we discussed that matter in Committee, I said that there was no need for any amendment to achieve the objective that is now outlined in new clause 3 because any individual could bring a private prosecution. I ask the House to accept that point.
Several hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, have questioned whether matters of dispute should go before a tribunal as opposed to going before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I find it more compelling to say that such matters should go before my right hon. Friend because he

is answerable to the House. It is perfectly clear that whoever is the Secretary of State for the Environment, in whatever Administration, that person would be subjected to more pressure—certainly environmental pressure—than that to which any tribunal would or could be subjected. Therefore, on balance, I believe that that matter is better left in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment instead of with the bureaucracy that always attends such tribunals.
I have no difficulty with appeals that are made to my right hon. Friend being as open as possible—that would be entirely consistent with increased public access to environmental information—but, for goodness sake, let us not invent a new bureaucracy and set up a new tribunal—

Ms. Mowlam: What about the new bureaucracy that was set up for the poll tax?

Mr. Trippier: I can assure Opposition Members that in the unlikely event of them ever becoming the Government of this country, they would wish to reserve those powers for their Secretary of State for the Environment. I found it amusing that the Opposition should seek to raise that point by way of a new clause. I also found the discussion about commercial confidentiality amusing. Although by itself it is not an amusing subject—it is serious and interesting—I must advise the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that, at the risk of hammering the nails out of sight, we bashed this one to bits in Committee. It resulted in me issuing a press notice, which I am anxious to send to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, in which I made clear the way in which we interpret matters of commercial confidentiality.
I agree with the hon. Members for Soutwark and Bermondsey and for Dewsbury that there should be a presumption in favour of revealing as much as possible. The only thing with which I disagreed in the hon. Lady's initial speech was when she said that there seemed to be a great difference of opinion on that point. I do not accept that. I believe that we are all pointing in the same direction. I clearly remember an intervention on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), suggesting that we should clearly spell out that which we would consider to be commercially confidential, but that at all times there should be a presumption in favour of releasing that information. As I have said, secrecy breeds fear, which is just what we want to avoid in these circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has been co-operative throughout, especially in Committee, and we have tried to meet many of his points. He will draw comfort from the fact that the scope of our wider noise review will be extended to cover aircraft noise. My hon. Friend is fully entitled to draw to himself the credit for having drawn our attention, as Ministers, to the importance of that issue, and I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Adley: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for responding yet again. May I presume to assume that my other point about vehicle emissions will also feature in


discussions between his Department and the Department of Transport so that ere long he will be able to say the same thing about that?

Mr. Trippier: Vehicle emissions will certainly be covered in the scope of the proposed White Paper, which is to be introduced in September. I am afraid that I am not empowered to go further than that at this stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be satisfied with half a cake this afternoon. I am delighted for him that aircraft noise will be included in the noise review.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury asked me about the conditions that are not included in new clause 11. That is because the issue is covered in subsection (1)(b). The reference to "authorisations" includes emissions. The hon. Lady also asked about registers—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say that the White Paper would he published in September? Will that be for the Tory party conference? Would not it have been better to publish it while the House of Commons is sitting so that we could debate it at an early opportunity?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman might have had a point if the promise to produce the White Paper had been made initially to the House of Commons, but my hon. Friends will recall that that promise was made at the Conservative conference in Blackpool when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the party workers, who were sitting there with bated breath, that before the next conference they would have a White Paper. They were clearly overjoyed. It is important that we secure the support of our own supporters before making such a document available to the waiting world.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one point. He seems to imply that the White Paper is designed to satisfy, and perhaps abate, some of the criticism that the Government are expecting at this year's Tory party conference. If the White Paper is an internal Tory party document, why is the taxpayer paying for it and not the Conservative party?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady knows better than that. As I recall, the White Paper was welcomed by the Opposition when it was announced. That form of announcement—at a party conference—is common to all political parties, especially when they are in power. It is clear that the White Paper will be an agenda for the 1990s, and the Conservative party intends to be in government at the end of the 1990s and to ensure that its proposals are implemented.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury also asked about registers in any form. New clause 11 makes wide provision to cover all the ways of maintaining a register—paper records, computer-held data microfiche and photographic registers. That is why the existing clause has been changed—to allow all or any forms of register to be kept.
I have some sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). A similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). The provisions in the Bill for waste disposal have been tightened up and as a result of the legislation standards will be raised. Of that there can he no doubt. The precise provisions that both hon. Members seek would best be incorporated in planning legislation. That was rightly

pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. Obviously we hope to ensure that the legislation is tightened up sooner rather than later.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trippier: May I finish this point? Although the matter is in the purview of the Welsh Office, there are provisions in the Bill concerning the importation of hazardous waste—principally from abroad. That clearly needs tightening up. Under part II of the Bill, which deals with waste, I shall try to introduce a national strategy—I stop short of saying "plan"—to ensure that regions of the United Kingdom remain self-sufficient in how they deal with their waste. That will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

Mr. Rowlands: The key point was emphasised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). We should bring that type of activity under planning control, so that local authorities can say no, public inquiries can take place and everyone, including the Health and Safety Executive, must make their case before an independent inspector. That is the key change—as opposed to allowing 7,000 drums to turn up in my constituency without planning permission being required.

Mr Trippier: I agree, and I understood the hon. Gentleman's earlier point. However, I know that he accepts that that type of planning provision cannot be included in the Bill. We hope to address that point in more detail in the near future: a legislative window should be found for such a planning Bill.
I give a solemn undertaking to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that my officials and I will do whatever we can to improve the Bill to relieve the problems that he has experienced in Wath upon Dearne. That could include amendments made to the Bill in another place. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have every sympathy for his predicament. Furthermore, I shall make it my business to ensure that there are international agreements to cover all his points. If we do not co-operate with other countries—especially developed countries—we shall be at a competitive disadvantage.
Let me explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that we arrived at a figure of four years as something of a compromise, between Labour Front-Benchers who wanted a tighter turnaround time and a reapplication of the conditions of commercial confidentiality, and those in the industry—certainly the chemical industry—who would have wanted much more time. We thought that four years was satisfactory, although I am sure that the figure will be re-examined in another place. The Government consider that that is a satisfactory length of time to elapse before an application is made.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh shakes his head. I must say to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that when he was praying in aid the contribution of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), he must have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chemical Industries Association was content with the provisions in that part of the Bill, with the exception of his amendment. I believe that what he said was not conjecture, but a statement of fact.
I hope that the amendment and the new clause in the name of Opposition Members will not be pressed to a Division, and that the House will support the Government's new clauses.

New Clause 12

EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF INFORMATION AFFECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

`.—(1) No information shall be included in a register maintained under section (Public registers of information) above if and so long as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inclusion in the register of that information, or information of that description, would be contrary to the interests of national security.

(2) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of securing the exclusion from registers of information to which subsection (1) above applies, give to enforcing authorities directions—

(a) specifying information, or descriptions of information, to be excluded from their registers; or
(b)specifying descriptions of information to be referred to the Secretary of State for his determination;

and no information referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of paragraph (b) above shall be included in any such register until the Secretary of State determines that it should be so included.

(3) The enforcing authority shall notify the Secretary of State of any information it excludes from the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (2) above.

(4) A person may, as respects any information which appears to him to be information to which subsection (1) above may apply, give a notice to the Secretary of State specifying the information and indicating its apparent nature; and, if he does so—

(a) he shall notify the enforcing authority that he has done so; and
(b) no information so notified to the Secretary of State shall be included in any such register until the Secretary of State has determined that it should be so included.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

EXCLUSION FROM PUBLIC REGISTERS OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

' .—(1) No information relating to the affairs of any individual or business shall be included in a register maintained under section (Public registers of information) above, without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business, if and so long as the information—

(a) is, in relation to him, commercially confidential; and
(b) is not required to be included in the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (6) below;

but information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section unless it is determined under this section to be so by the enforcing authority or, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.

(2) Where information is furnished to an enforcing authority for the purpose of—

(a) an application for an authorisation or for the variation of an authorisation;
(b) complying with any condition of an authorisation; or
(c) complying with a notice under section 18(2) above;


then, if the person furnishing it applies to the authority to have the information excluded from the register on the ground that it is commercially confidential (as regards himself or another person), the authority shall determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.

(3) Where it appears to an enforcing authority that any information (other than information furnished in circumstances within subsection (2) above) which has been obtained by the authority under or by virtue of any provision of this Part might be commercially confidential, the authority shall—

(a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in the register unless excluded under this section; and
(b) give him a reasonable opportunity—

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the ground that it is commercially confidential; and
(ii) of making representations to the authority for the purpose of justifying any such objection;


and, if any representations are made, the enforcing authority shall, having taken the representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.

(4) Where, under subsection (2) or (3) above, an authority determines that information is not commercially confidential—

(a) the information shall not be entered on the register until the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the determination is notified to the person concerned;
(b) that person may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision;

and, where an appeal is brought in respect of any information, the information shall not be entered on the register pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.

(5) Subsections (3), (4) and (9) of section 14 above shall apply in relation to appeals under subsection (4) above.

(6) The Secretary of State may give to the enforcing authorities directions as to specified information, or descriptions of information, which the public interest requires to be included in registers maintained under section (Public registers of information) above notwithstanding that the information may be commercially confidential.

(7) Information excluded from a register shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential for the purposes of this section at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date of the determination by virtue of which it was excluded; but the person who furnished it may apply to the authority for the information to remain excluded from the register on the ground that it is still commercially confidential and the authority shall determine whether or not that is the case.

(8) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall apply in relation to a determination under subsection (7) above as they apply in relation to a determination under subsection (2) or (3) above.

(9) Information is, for the purposes of any determination under this section, commercially confidential, in relation to any individual or person, if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.'—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

VARIATION OF AUTHORISATIONS BY ENFORCING AUTHORITY

'(1) The enforcing authority may at any time, subject to the requirements of section 7 above, vary an authorisation and shall do so if it appears to the authority at that time that that section requires conditions to be included which are different from the subsisting conditions.

(2) Where the enforcing authority has decided to vary an authorisation under subsection (1) above the authority shall notify the holder of the authorisation and serve a variation notice on him.

(3) In this Part a "variation notice" is a notice served by the enforcing authority on the holder of an authorization—

(a) specifying variations of the authorisation which the enforcing authority has decided to make; and
(b) specifying the date or dates on which the variations are to take effect;

and, unless the notice is withdrawn, the variations specified in a variation notice shall take effect on the date or dates so specified.

(4) A variation notice served under subsection (2) above shall also—

(a) require the holder of the authorisation, within such period as may be specified in the notice, to notify the authority what action (if any) he proposes to take to ensure that the process is carried on in accordance with the authorisation as varied by the notice; and
(b) require the holder to pay the fee (if any) prescribed by a scheme under section 8 above within such period as may be specified in the notice.

(5) Where in the opinion of the enforcing authority any action to be taken by the holder of an authorisation in consequence of a variation notice served under subsection (2) above will involve a substantial change in the manner in which the process is being carried on—

(a) the enforcing authority shall notify the holder of its opinion; and
(b) the holder shall, within the prescribed period, advertise the change in the prescribed manner.

(6) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit in relation to authorisations of any description or particular authorisations, direct the enforcing authorities—

(a) to exercise their powers under this section, or to do so in such circumstances as may be specified in the directions, in such manner as may be so specified; or
(b) not to exercise those powers, or not to do so in such circumstances or such manner as may be so specified;

and the Secretary of State shall have the corresponding power of direction in respect of the powers of the enforcing authorities to vary authorisations under section (variation of conditions etc: applications by holders of authorizations) below.

(7) In this section and section (variation of conditions etc: applications by holders of authorizations) below a "substantial change", in relation to a prescribed process being carried on under an authorisation, means a substantial change in the substances released from the process or in the amount or any other characteristic of any substance so released; and the Secretary of State may give directions to the enforcing authorities as to what does or does not constitute a substantial change in relation to processes generally, any description of process or any particular process.

(8) In this section and section (variation of conditions etc: applications by holders of authorizations) below—
prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
vary", in relation to the subsisting conditions or other provisions of an authorisation, means adding to them or varying or rescinding any of them;
and "variation" shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take Government new clauses 32 and 14, and Government amendments Nos. 38, 40, 103, 152, 153, 41, 154 to 158, 55, 159 to 162, 239 and 57.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In our previous debate on public access, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside explained that he thought it appropriate for more detail on public registers to be included in the Bill. We have also decided that more detail on the transfer and variation of authorisations should be included. When the Committee considered what has become clause 9 in the Report print of the Bill, I commented that I was not satisfied with parts of the clause and would return to the issue on Report.
One of the main concerns expressed in Committee was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who complained about the potential for delay in settling transfers. We consider that there is advantage in separating the procedure for transfer of an authorisation from the more complex procedures for varying an authorisation. Accordingly, new clause 14 sets out the relatively simple procedure for transfer, which provides merely for notification by the new operator within three weeks. Failure to do so will attract penalties, which are the subject of amendments Nos. 55 and 57.
New clauses 31 and 32 set out in more detail the procedures that must be followed when authorisations are to be varied. New clause 31 details the action to be taken by the enforcing authority, whether the proposal to vary was initiated by it or by the operator. It is intended to keep the public informed of the proposals for substantial change, and allows them to make representations about such proposals.
New clause 32 sets out the procedure to be followed by the operator, whether he has himself initiated the request for change or has been served with a variation notice by the enforcing authority.
Once an authorisation has been granted, not only will the regulatory authority be able to vary the authorisation from time to time, but the conditions of every authorisation will be reviewed from time to time as a matter of course. We believe that four years, for which amendment No. 38 provides, is an appropriate timetable by which to work as it allows enough time for new technology to develop in the relevant industrial sector.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 clarify which matters enforcing authorities must take into account when issuing authorisations for IPC and local authority air pollution control.
Amendment No. 40 makes clear on the face of the Bill the dividing line between the Bill and what more properly falls under the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. Amendment No. 41 requires enforcing authorities to have due regard to any guidance that may be issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the best available techniques and environmental options to be required of operators generally or for a specific process or category of process.
7 pm
I notice that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) has tabled amendment No. 103. I will not comment on it now, but if he speaks to it I will endeavour to answer the points that he makes.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clauses are relatively uncontroversial and lie at the heart of our proposals to make effective improvements in industrial environmental protection.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I put two questions to the Minister? First, are there any safeguards to prevent the transfer of an authorisation to an undesirable person—for example, someone who is known to have committed offences under pollution legislation?
My second question is more important and is on the guidance on the duties to which enforcing authorities must have regard. May I put a hypothetical case to ascertain whether a duty would be included? Would authorities have to take account of directions on Government policy, for example, on flue gas desulphurisation? The Government have said that there must be a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 1993. If authorities set their targets accordingly but the nature of the industry is changed substantially by imported coal, and if as a result by 1993 only one power station is fitted with flue gas desulpherisation equipment, as appears likely, will the Secretary of State be able to use his power of direction as a consequence of that? "Taking regard" can mean something or nothing. It can mean, "Yes, we hear what the Secretary of State says, but we do not have to do anything about it", or "Yes, we must do what the Secretary of State wants."
To what extent will amendment No. 41 allow the Secretary of State to influence the actions and practices of enforcement agencies? Concern has been expressed that if the Government seek to go back on international commitments—we are concerned that they are doing so—it could weaken the powers of the enforcement agencies, which would be a severe problem.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish merely to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether his observations of the best available techniques include the best available and most up-to-date modes of transport, for example, for transporting stuff to and from a waste disposal factory. Is transport included in his observations?

Mr. Oakes: I cannot understand why the Minister is giving directions when in almost every other clause he is making regulations. It seems to me, and particularly to the chemicals industry, that regulations would be far better than directions because it is essential that the people dealing with and controlling the processes have a clear understanding of the requirements from the outset.
Directions tend to be somewhat airy-fairy, but regulations made before the system comes into operation—that is the purpose of amendment No. 103—would be clear, precise and definite, and those operating the important system of integrated pollution control would know where they stood.
The Minister mentioned amendment No. 103, but I seek a reply merely to that point.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to suggest that the risk of a transfer to an unsuitable person or operator should be blocked in advance. That would be extremely difficult to operate in practice and I would rather, as the Bill does, lay reliance on the fact that any operator will have to meet the conditions of the licence. If he does not do so, prosecution or enforcement notices can

follow and are available in the Bill. If such an operator must be set new conditions appropriate to evolving technology or changing circumstances, the enforcing authorities have the power to compel him to do so. That is a better, more certain and more reliable safeguard than a subjective assessment of the suitability of the operator.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hear what the Minister says, but will he reconsider whether a person who has breached a duty under pollution legislation should automatically be the recipient of a transfer? Those shown to have failed a responsibility should be exempted.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Under part II on the suitability of licensed operators for waste disposal, one of the criteria that can be taken into account is whether the operator has breached prior conditions. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point about guidance for the Secretary of State, draft guidance has been placed in the Library on the meaning of BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—which interprets what is meant by "available" and tries to determine what costs should be judged as excessive. That has nothing to do with Government policy, but in addition to the guidance issued the enforcing authorities must have regard to any directions issued by the Secretary of State. It would be perfectly in order for him to issue directions on whether a country or industry should fall within the provisions of EC targets or directives. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's second point.
I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), but I genuinely did not hear her trying to intervene. I did not wish to prevent her from asking her question. She may appreciate that part I deals with prescribed processes from factories, but part II deals with waste disposal where transport over a considerable distance may be a material consideration. In setting the tenders for waste disposal and collection, the distance that the waste travels must be taken into account. In considering BATNEEC, we are dealing with static industrial plants or factories where transport costs are not relevant.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I meant not just the distance but the standard of lorries to ensure that goods do not spill out. The best, up-to-date lorries should be included in the regulations.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are dealing in this part of the Bill with the need for industrial processes to comply with emission controls and standards. That is where the concept of BATNEEC is relevant. Therefore, transport costs, either to or from a factory, are not a material consideration.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point is that the better the techniques and the quicker the lorries, the easier it is to refine the goods. If the goods were carried haphazardly, they would arrive in a less easily processable state than if they were carried in the best possible lorries. The process is very much better if the goods have been transported efficiently because the stuff gets to the waste processing factory in a better condition.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That consideration will obviously be taken into account by the owners, managers or


operators of the plant in question. It will not be enforced under this part of the Bill. That being so, I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.
The right hon.Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was worried about the powers of the Secretary of State and would prefer provisions to be laid out, where possible, in regulations. I am afraid that I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. The vast majority of cases will remain the responsibility of the issuing authorities and therefore will have nothing to do with either the Secretary of State or any regulations. I agree that in certain circumstances there may be a need in the national interest to take account of factors beyond the objectives set out in clause 7. In such cases, it is right that a higher authority should be able to require the inclusion of specific conditions.
Often such action will need to be taken quickly. In those circumstances, it is an advantage that there should be a direction from the Secretary of State rather than a more cumbersome requirement for the provisions to be set out in regulations. We have been under pressure, correctly, to ensure that the Bill's provisions are not unnecessarily unwieldy and unduly burdensome to business and industry. This is not—I think that I can give the right hon. Member for Halton an assurance—at the expense of reducing in any way the accountability of the process or the rights of the public or industries affected to understand and scrutinise what happens.
There is no question that directions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in any sense be less viable than the regulations that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. New clause 11, which has been discussed, repeats the undertaking in old clause 19 that prescribed particulars or directions made by the Secretary of State in relation to an authorisation will be placed on public registers.
In framing the provisions, we have emphasised the need for speedy, flexible arrangements without in any way compromising our commitment to accountability and to public and business access to information.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

VARIATION OF CONDITIONS ETC: APPLICATIONS BY HOLDERS OF AUTHORISATIONS

`(1) A person carrying on a prescribed process under an authorisation who wishes to make a relevant change in the process may at any time—>

(a) notify the enforcing authority in the prescribed form of that fact, and
(b) request the enforcing authority to make a determination, in relation to the proposed change, of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below;

and a person making a request under paragraph (b) above shall furnish the enforcing authority with such information as may be prescribed or as the authority may by notice require.

(2) On receiving a request under subsection (1) above the enforcing authority shall determine—

(a) whether the proposed change would involve a breach of any condition of the authorisation;
(b) if it would not involve such a breach, whether the authority would be likely to vary the conditions of the authorisation as a result of the change;
(c) if it would involve such a breach, whether the authority would consider varying the conditions of the authorisation so that the change may be made; and

(d) whether the change would involve a substantial change in the manner in which the process is being carried on;

and the enforcing authority shall notify the holder of the authorisation of its determination of those matters.

(3) Where the enforcing authority has determined that the proposed change would not involve a substantial change, but has also determined under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above that the change would lead to or require the variation of the conditions of the authorisation, then—

(a) the enforcing authority shall (either on notifying its determination under that subsection or on a subsequent occasion) notify the holder of the authorisation of the variations which the authority is likely to consider making; and
(b) the holder may apply in the prescribed form to the enforcing authority for the variation of the conditions of the authorisation so that he may make the proposed change.

(4) Where the enforcing authority has determined that a proposed change would involve a substantial change that would lead to or require the variation of the conditions of the authorisation, then—

(a) the authority shall (either on notifying its determination under subsection (2) above or on a subsequent occasion) notify the holder of the authorisation of the variations which the authority is likely to consider making; and
(b) the holder of the authorisation shall, if he wishes to proceed with the change, apply in the prescribed form to the enforcing authority for a variation of the conditions of the authorisation and advertise the change in the prescribed manner.

(5) The holder of an authorisation may at any time, unless he is carrying on a prescribed process under the authorisation and wishes to make a relevant change in the process, apply to the enforcing authority in the prescribed form for the variation of the conditions of the authorisation; and a person making such an application shall furnish the authority with such information as may be prescribed or as the authority may by notice require.

(6) On an application for variation of the conditions of an authorisation under any provision of this section—

(a) the enforcing authority may refuse the application or, subject to the requirements of section 7 above, vary the conditions as it thinks fit; and
(b) if the enforcing authority decides to vary the conditions, it shall serve a variation notice on the holder of the authorisation;

(7) Any application to the enforcing authority under this section shall be accompanied by the applicable fee (if any) prescribed by a scheme made under section 8 above.

(8) This section applies to any provision other than a condition which is contained in an authorisation as it applies to a condition with the modification that any reference to the breach of a condition shall be read as a reference to acting outside the scope of the authorisation.

(9) For the purposes of this section a relevant change in a prescribed process is a change in the manner of carrying on the process which is capable of altering the substances released from the process or of affecting the amount or any other characteristic of any substance so released.'.—[ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

TRANSFER OF AUTHORISATIONS

`.—(1) An authorisation for the carrying on of any prescribed process may be transferred by the holder to a person who proposes to carry on the process in the holder's place.

(2) Where an authorisation is transferred under this section, the person to whom it is transferred shall notify the enforcing authority in writing of that fact not later than the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date of the transfer.

(3) An authorisation which is transferred under this section shall have effect on and after the date of the transfer as if it had been granted to that person under section 6 above, subject to the same conditions as were attached to it immediately before that date.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

PRELIMINARY

'.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the interpretation of Part II.

(2) The "environment" consists of all, or any, of the following media, namely land, water and the air.

(3) "Pollution of the environment" means pollution of the environment due to the release or escape (into any environmental medium) from—

(a) the land on which controlled waste is treated,
(b) the land on which controlled waste is kept,
(c) the land in or on which controlled waste is deposited,
(d) fixed plant by means of which controlled waste is treated, kept or disposed of,

of substances or articles constituting or resulting from the waste and capable (by reason of the quantity or concentrations involved) of causing harm to man or any other living organisms supported by the environment.

(4) Subsection (3) above applies in relation to mobile plant by means of which controlled waste is treated or disposed of as it applies to plant on land by means of which controlled waste is treated or disposed of.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) above "harm" means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and in the case of man includes offence to any of his senses or harm to his property; and "harmless" has a corresponding meaning.

(6) The "disposal" of waste includes its disposal by way of deposit in or on land and, subject to subsection (7) below, waste is "treated" when it is subjected to any process, including making it re-usable or reclaiming substances from it and "recycle" (and cognate expressions) shall be construed accordingly.

(7) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may prescribe activities as activities which constitute the treatment of waste for the purposes of this Part or any provision of this Part prescribed in the regulations.

(8) "Land" includes land covered by waters where the land is above the low water mark of ordinary spring tides and references to land on which controlled waste is treated, kept or deposited are references to the surface of the land (including any structure set into the surface).

(9) "Mobile plant" means, subject to subsection (9) below, plant which is designed to move or be moved whether on roads or other land.

(10) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may prescribe descriptions of plant which are to be treated as being, or as not being, mobile plant for the purposes of this Part.

(11) "Substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF INFORMATION AFFECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

`.—(1) No information shall be included in a register maintained under section 57 above (a "register") if and so long as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the inclusion in the register of that information, or information of that description, would be contrary to the interests of national security.

(2) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of securing the exclusion from registers of information to which subsection (1) above applies, give to the authorities maintaining registers directions—

(a) specifying information, or descriptions of information, to be excluded from their registers; or
(b) specifying descriptions of information to be referred to the Secretary of State for his determination;

and no information referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of paragraph (b) above shall be included in any such register until the Secretary of State determines that it should be so included.

(3) An authority maintaining a register shall notify the Secretary of State of any information it excludes from the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (2) above.

(4) A person may, as respects any information which appears to him to be information to which subsection (1) above may apply, give a notice to the Secretary of State specifying the information and indicating its apparent nature; and, if he does so—

(a) he shall notify the authority concerned that he has done so; and
(b) no information so notified to the Secretary of State shall be included in the register kept by that authority until the Secretary of State has determined that it should be so included.'.—[Mr. HeathcoatAmory.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

`.—(1) No information relating to the affairs of any individual or business shall be included in a register maintained under section 57 above (a "register"), without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business, if and so long as the information—

(a) is, in relation to him, commercially confidential; and
(b) is not required to be included in the register in pursuance of directions under subsection (6) below;

but information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section unless it is determined under this section to be so by the authority maintaining the register or, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.

(2) Where information is furnished to an authority maintaining a register for the purpose of—

(a) an application for, or for the modification of, a licence;
(b) complying with any condition of a licence; or
(c) complying with a notice under section 61(2) below;

then, if the person furnishing it applies to the authority to have the information excluded from the register on the ground that it is commercially confidential (as regards himself or another person), the authority shall determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.

(3) Where it appears to an authority keeping a register that any information (other than information furnished in circumstances within subsection (2) above) which has been


obtained by the authority under or by virtue of any provision of this Part might be commercially confidential, the authority shall—

(a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in the register unless excluded under this section; and
(b) give him a reasonable opportunity—

(i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the grounds that it is commercially confidential; and
(ii) of making representations to the authority for the purpose of justifying any such objection;


and, if any representations are made, the authority shall, having taken the representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.

(4) Where, under subsection (2) or (3) above, an authority determines that information is not commercially confidential—

(a) the information shall not be entered in the register until the end of the period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the determination is notified to the person concerned;
(b) that person may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision;

and, where an appeal is brought in respect of any information, the information shall not be entered in the register pending the final deterimination or withdrawal of the appeal.

(5) Subsections (2A) and (7) of section 38 above shall apply in relation to appeals under subsection (4) above.

(6) The Secretary of State may give to the authorities maintaining registers directions as to specified information, or descriptions of information, which the public interest requires to be included in the registers notwithstanding that the information may be commercially confidential.

(7) Information excluded from a register shall be treated as ceasing to be commercially confidential for the purposes of this section at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date of the determination by virtue of which it was excluded; but the person who furnished it may apply to the authority for the information to remain excluded from the register on the ground that it is still commercially confidential and the authority shall determine whether or not that is the case.

(8) Subsections (4) and (5) above shall apply in relation to a determination under subsection (7) above as they apply in relation to a determination under subsection (2) or (3) above.

(9) Information is, for the purposes of any determination under this section, commercially confidential, in relation to any individual or person, if its being contained in the register would prejudice to an unreasonable degree the commercial interests of that individual or person.'.—[Mr. HeathcoatAmory.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

TRANSITION FROM CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974 TO THIS ACT

'.—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of the transition from the provisions of Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") to the corresponding provisions of this Part of this Act and in this section—
existing disposal authority" has the same meaning as in section 27 above;
existing disposal licence" means a disposal licence under section 5 of the 1974 Act subsisting on the day appointed under section 133(3) below for the repeal of sections 3 to 10 of the 1974 Act;
the relevant appointed day" means that day;

relevant part of its undertaking", in relation to an existing disposal authority, has the same meaning as in section 27 above; and
the vesting date"; in relation to an existing disposal authority and its waste disposal contractors, means the vesting date under Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2) An existing disposal licence shall, on and after the relevant appointed day, be treated as a site licence until ht expires or otherwise ceases to have effect; and accordingly it shall be variable and subject to revocation or suspension under this Part of this Act and may not be surrendered or transferred except under this Part of this Act.

(3) As respects any relevant existing disposal authority—

(a) the restriction imposed by section 45(1) of this Act on the means whereby the authority arranges for the disposal of controlled waste shall not apply to the authority—

(i) in the case of an authority which transfers the relevant part of its undertaking in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, until the date which is the vesting date for that authority; and
(ii) in any other case, until the date on which (to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 27(3) and (4) above) the authority transfers, or ceases itself to carry on, the relevant part of its undertaking or ceases to provide places at which or plant and equipment by means of which controlled waste can be disposed of or deposited for the purposes of disposal; and

(b) on and after that date, section 14(4) of the 1974 Act shall not authorise the authority to arrange for the disposal of controlled waste except by means cif arrangements made (in accordance with Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act) with waste disposal contractors.

(4) In section 14(4) of the 1974 Act, after the words "this subsection", there shall be inserted the words "but subject to subsection (3) of section (Transition from Control of Pollution Act 1974 to this Act) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as respects any time after the date applicable to the authority under paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection".'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 18—Application of Part II to the Isles of Scilly

New clause 20—Minimisation of waste—
'( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in making regulations under sections 3(2) or 3(4) below in relation to pollution from prescribed processes or particular substances have regard to the need to promote the reduction of the volume of waste.
(2) The authorities designated as waste regulation authorities under section 26(1) shall in the exercise of their functions have regard to the consideration specified in subsection (1) above.
(3) The Secretary of State shall within one year of the implementation of Part II below, and after consultation with the authorities specified in section 26 below, publish a national plan for the minimisation of waste, including such proposals, whether or not falling within existing enactments, as he considers desirable.
(4) For the purposes of facilitating the exercise by the Secretary of State of his duties under this section, the authorities specified in section 26 may submit advice to him on the promotion of waste minimisation and the Secretary of State shall have regard to any such submissions.'.

New clause 26—Incentives for waste recycling—
'( )—(1) This section has effect for the purpose of facilitating the proper exercise of the powers conferred on waste disposal and waste collection authorities by section 48, and on waste disposal authorities by section 49 below in respect of the development of waste recycling.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish and from time to time revise a scheme drawn up after examination of the plans produced by waste collection authorities under section 43 below for the purpose of securing adequate financial incentives to the development of the use of recycled materials, including the establishment of guaranteed prices for such materials as he considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the resources available to waste collection and disposal authorities, whether in terms of revenue expenditure or of the cost of, or total in any financial year available of, credit approvals are adequate in each case to secure the proper use of the powers conferred by this Act for the promotion of recycling.'.

New clause 28—Reserve powers to protect environment in respect of waste disposal—
'( )—(1) A waste disposal authority falling within the description specified in section 27(1) below may form a date twelve months after the date of any transfer of functions under or in accordance with section 27 below transfer to itself from a company formed in accordance with section 27(2) or 27(3)(a) below such of its undertakings as it considers necessary to secure the effective disposal, or keeping, treatment or collection of waste, or the improvement thereof, in the interests of the environment.
 (2) In circumstances where a waste regulation authority exercises its powers under 33(4) below to revoke entirely a waste management licence on environmental grounds; the authority may either—

(a) undertake itself the waste management operation concerned; or
(b) direct that no similar activity shall be undertaken in respect of the relevant site or, as the case may be, by means of the relevant process where it considers that the continuation of such activities would cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or would be seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected,

and in such circumstances as are specified in paragraph (b) above the authority may, in acordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State in respect of periods of notice and inspection arrangements, revoke any other licence applying within its area which it reasonably considers is having, or may have, a similar effect.'.

New clause 58—Joint discharge functions—
'(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any group of waste regulation authorities could with advantage make joint arrangements for the discharge of their functions under this Part, or if any group of waste regulation authorities so request, the Secretary of State shall by order establish for the areas covered by the group a single authority to discharge all such functions of such of them as are specified in the order.
(2) No person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under subsection (1) above unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established.
(3) An order under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities.'.

Amendment No. 241, in clause 26, page 24, line 22, leave out from 'namely' to end of line 39 and insert—

'(a) for Greater London, the authority constituted as the London Waste Regulation Authority;
(b) in Scotland, an islands or district council;

(c) for any metropolitan or non-metropolitan county in England, and for any district in Wales, the authority constituted as the Waste Regulation Authority, pursuant to an order made by the Secretary of State;

and in making any such order the Secretary of State shall have regard to the boundaries of the existing water and sewerage undertakers within the meaning of the Water Act 1989 and existing patterns of waste arisings and disposals.'.

Amendment No. 242, in clause 26, page 24, line 39, at end insert—
'The Secretary of State shall give directions to waste regulation authorities mentioned in paragraph (e) above to form or participate in forming joint waste regulation units within the metropolitan counties, to determine the budget of the units so formed, and to delegate waste regulatory functions to such units; and the budgets of those units shall be met by the constituent authorities in proportion to their populations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 64, 93, 65, 109, 66 to 68,151, 113, 114, 69, 115 and 116.

Amendment No. 243, in clause 29, page 30, line 19, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) A draft code prepared under subsection (6) above shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall not be issued until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the code was so laid, or if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the days.
(9) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (8) above, either House resolves that the code the draft of which was laid before it should not be issued, the Secretary of State shall not issue that code.
(10) No account shall be taken in reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of this section of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.'.

Government amendments Nos. 70, 110 and 71 to 73.

Amendment No. 141, in clause 39, page 41, line 12, at end insert—
'(2A) In respect of the functions of a waste collection authority with regard to chemical waste, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the details of any inquiry into the disposal of such waste extant at the date of Royal Assent.'

Government amendments Nos. 234, 74 to 76, 111, 63 and 112.

Amendment No. 316, in clause 64, page 69, line 49, at end add—
`(8) Where a waste regulation authority has determined whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a waste management licence, that fact shall be a material consideration in any other application for a waste regulation authority.'.

Government amendments Nos. 95, 122 and 96 to 99.

Mr. Trippier: New clause 30 and Government amendment No. 63 contain transitional provisions to allow for a smooth transfer from the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to the provisions of the Bill. In particular, they provide that an existing waste disposal licence will be treated as a site licence and be subject to the new stricter regime when the relevant licensing clauses of the Bill are implemented.
Government new clause 18 allows for some flexibility in applying the Bill's provisions to the Isles of Scilly.
New clause 20 requires the Secretary of State and waste regulation authorities to have regard to the need to promote waste minimisation when issuing regulations and discharging their functions. There is no locus in the functions of waste regulation authorities or the Secretary of State under part II which is relevant to waste


minimisation. The functions of waste regulation authorities are to license the disposal or other management of waste once it has been created. They have no functions regarding the production of waste. I therefore do not believe that the new clause is relevant to part II.
New clause 20 also requires the Secretary of State to produce a national plan for waste minimisation. I am disappointed, although not entirely surprised, that the Opposition still press for the reintroduction of national plans. A number of my hon. Friends who are members of the Select Committee on the Environment have sympathy for the idea of adopting some kind of strategy. I have already said that there should be some national strategy. I should prefer to see it in the White Paper which is to be published in the autumn. I told members of the Standing Committee that discussions have already taken place with representatives from the local authority associations and I am comforted by their reaction in moving in the direction sought by members of the Select Committee, especially in terms of regions becoming self-sufficient in waste minimisation.
New clause 26 proposes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should draw up a scheme based on recycling plans incorporating financial incentives and guaranteed prices for recycling materials. I entirely agree that there should be incentives for those who recycle. That is why I am pleased to announce that we are consulting on a new scheme of recycling credits which will strengthen the existing rebates system provided for in clause 45(5). We intend to introduce an amendment to achieve that at a later stage.
On the subject of recycling, Government amendment No. 74 builds on the amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for which I thank him. It ensures that once a plan has been completed, all those who had a hand in its preparation and anyone else with an interest will have a right to see and buy a copy of the plan. I am sure that the House will agree that that is only fair and reasonable.
On Government amendment No. 234, it seems right that we should have an opportunity to look at the plans before they have been completed to ensure that they cover all the areas that are relevant. Government amendment No. 111 achieves the same effect for waste disposal plans, and both measures are reasonable and desirable. I trust that the House will agree.
I have some difficulty with new clause 28 and regard it as rather a puzzle. If I understand the intention correctly, it would allow an authority that had transferred its disposal operations to an arm's-length company to transfer them back again within a year if it felt like it. That seems bizarre. Why should it be necessary for an authority that has set up a disposal company to get involved directly in disposal again? Each disposal authority will let a contract, taking account of environmental factors, either with its arm's-length company or with another disposal company, and that authority's waste will be disposed of under the terms of the contract. If any improvements are needed in the interests of the environment once the contract has been let, it is up to the relevant regulation authority to impose them by modifying waste management licences if necessary or simply by enforcing the existing licences.
Subsection (2) is more worrying. The idea of local authorities taking back powers to run disposal sites is linked to regulation authorities, completely undermining

the separation of poacher and gamekeeper that has been achieved. If an authority decides to revoke a waste management licence, that authority will be able to take over the running of the site. We have heard many accusations of back-door privatisation, but now we have as an alternative the back-door nationalisation not just of current local authority sites but of any site.
The last part of the new clause adds a wholly unnecessary power.

Mr. Tony Banks: The proposal does not sound so unreasonable. What happens if, for example, the company that is running the recycling plant area suddenly goes bankrupt or fails to discharge its responsibilities? In many cases, local authorities have been forced to move back in, to take over from a private sect or company that has gone bust or failed to discharge its responsibilities adequately.

Mr. Trippier: I suggest that that eventuality could not arise. The bids made by those arm's-length local authority companies—concerned not only with recycling, which is only one aspect, albeit an important one, but with the disposal of the waste—will be made to the local authority. In the main they will be made to county councils and, in the case of the metropolitan counties, the existing mechanism will be used. They will either bid by themselves, as local authority companies, or in conjunction with a private sector company. If they are not successful in winning or securing a particular contract, they will not exist as local authority companies under the definition in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
All parties have tabled new clauses. One appears on the amendment paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), although I understand that that is a mistake and that the new clause was in fact tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who has joined forces with the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). The proposals in new clause 58 would either require or enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set up regional waste regulation authorities. I touched on that subject earlier. Perhaps we shall be able to set up informal groups of those responsible for waste regulation. I met that point on several occasions in Committee, and I do not demur from what I said then. I simply add that the matter will have to be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. I hope that that will meet the principal concerns outlined by the members of the. Select Committee.
Let there be no doubt that the Government are committed to strengthening the present framework for waste regulation and securing effective arrangements for regional co-ordination. We want to consider with the local authority associations how best to do that. What we do not want to do is to undermine the existing waste disposal authority structure or remove the responsibility for waste disposal from the existing authorities—the planning authorities with responsibility for considering planning applications for the new disposal facilities. It would be unhelpful to divorce those responsibilities.
The Government do not have a closed mind on the question of reserve powers for the Secretary of State to establish regional groupings where voluntary co-operation


is not forthcoming. We shall be considering the matter further in the light of our discussions with the local authority associations and I believe that it will be best dealt with in the White Paper.

Ms. Joan Walley: I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks. I welcomed the Government's concessions on contaminated land, and I had hoped that the Minister would make slightly more concessions on the matters dealt with in this group of proposals.
We are concerned about the wider environmental issues. At no point in our debates on the Bill have we dealt with the problem of how to minimise the creation of waste at the point of production rather than dealing with cleaning up and disposal after the event. The concept of waste disposal has entered our language, whereas Governments have not grasped the concept of waste reduction. Despite the Minister's references to waste reduction, it has still not been taken into account to the extent that we should like. The Minister should tell us how much importance he attaches to waste reduction at source.
If we can get the Government to deal with the problem at source, we shall have gone some way towards adopting a precautionary approach. If we can do that, we shall be able to deal more efficiently and effectively with the waste that is produced. The House has debated waste incineration plants in the north-east. If more emphasis were placed on waste reduction, we should not need to increase the capacity of those waste incineration plants.
New clause 26 tightens the provisions that deal with recycling. I welcome the support that the Minister has given to the concept of waste recycling, but he has not gone far enough. I know that time is limited in this debate, but I should like to put down a marker and say that I hope that the recycling debate can continue elsewhere before the Bill is passed.
Equally important to the Opposition is new clause 28. We accept the principle of separating waste regulation and waste disposal functions but we do not believe that the setting up of local authority waste disposal companies chosen by the Government is the right way of achieving that aim. The Minister said that he found the new clause puzzling. There is no doubt, however, that LAWDCs will be subject to financial constraints imposed by the Treasury and by central Government. The Government seem to have overlooked the extent of the investment that will be needed by local waste disposal companies if they are to deal with recycling, source separation, recovery and all the other operations related to waste disposal and environmental protection. We feel that the safeguards outlined in new clause 28 are sensible and we should like them to be debated more fully.
Reference has been made to amendments that seek to mitigate the fiasco that we have had since the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties, as a result of the Government's inability at the time to understand that waste disposal was an important function of those authorities. It is important that that issue should be resolved, either this evening or in another place and certainly before the publication of the White Paper. Voluntary arrangements at regional level or the type of arrangements that already exist in the London area may be introduced, but if we wait until the White Paper is

published and any legislation resulting from it is introduced, the likelihood is that the good practice that has been built up by the replacement of the Greater London council and metropolitan counties will be lost. It will be too late to use the framework that has already been established.
It is important that we reduce the amount of waste produced and that the waste regulation authorities take decisions about waste reduction. I am sorry that the Minister felt that waste reduction was outside the terms of reference of the Bill. A national plan for waste minimisation is essential. Perhaps if we talked about a national strategy rather than a national plan, the Minister would be more likely to take our suggestions on board. If it is possible to compile a national register of contaminated land, it is possible to consider a national plan for waste minimisation.
7.30 pm
It is important that the Secretary of State should obtain advice from the waste authorities. We should not want new clause 20 to apply only to processes that come under integrated pollution control. The Minister must tell the House who is responsible for waste reduction and waste minimisation. Is his Department responsible? What discussions is he holding with other Secretaries of State and has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considered these issues? How will those operating waste disposal facilities advise on the most environmentally sound way of dealing with the waste chain when it is in their economic interest to make profit from disposal?
Before we debate waste reduction, we must take account of the principles laid down by the European Commission. The first principle is that the quantities of waste generated should be minimised, and that wherever possible we give priority to recycling waste that we cannot avoid producing. Any remaining waste must be safely and appropriately disposed of in a manner that minimises the effect on the environment. Those matters are key to the debate.
In considering new clause 26 we must ask ourselves whether the Government have given real priority to recycling or whether they are simply paying lip service to it. We must examine carefully and closely the discussions that the Minister says are taking place or that are about to take place with the local authority associations. The outcome of those discussions and the proposals that the Minister brings forward later will enable us to distinguish whether the measures in the Bill genuinely encourage recycling rather than simply enthusing people about collecting things. Many of us can give examples where local authorities have gone full speed ahead with recycling but, because of the Government's failure to intervene and their insistence on leaving recycling to market forces, even Conservative-controlled councils have ended up throwing carefully collected waste into landfill sites simply because there was no other place to dispose of it. That, too, is an important issue. The Government should set targets for recycling. We look forward to hearing further details of specific proposals.
While we agree with separating regulation and operation of waste disposal, the local authority waste disposal companies are not the right way to go about it. Our proposal is one way of introducing a safeguard. If it is found that LAWDCs are not going about their business


properly and if their failure to deal with the operations in hand causes environmental problems, the Secretary of State should have a reserve power to deal with them.
The Minister said that he was puzzled about our proposal. I refer him to other legislation. Despite all the powers provided under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to prevent rubbish from being fly-tipped or dumped in our boroughs, it was necessary to introduce the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. The powers to stop fly-tipping and to stop operators from damaging the environment were insufficient. Once the Minister has laid regulations before Parliament and they have been enacted, the Act will provide that those who cannot operate properly will have their livelihood taken away and their vehicles confiscated. There is no difference between that principle in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and the principle of our new clause, which would give the Secretary of State powers to make sure that the LAWDCs operated in the interests of the environment. It would ensure that the functions of the LAWDCs were carried out in an environmentally sound way.
We may not be able to resolve some issues in the debate tonight, but I hope that we shall return to them before the Bill is put on the statute book and before the White Paper is presented, presumably at the Tory party conference later this year.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I wish to speak to amendment No. 241 and new clause 58 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). Although amendment No. 241 appears on the amendment paper in the name of Conservative Members on the Select Committee on the Environment, it is an all-party amendment. It has the support of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), one of the Labour Members on the Select Committee. It reflects the Select Committee report on the important subject of hazardous and toxic waste.
In Standing Committee we had a lengthy debate on regional authorities. I shall not make a lengthy speech on that subject tonight. I am rather cynical about the Report stage of Bills. Often when one looks around the Chamber one sees that exactly the same hon. Members who served on the Committee have come along to air their views once more. However, what my hon. Friend the Minister has said today requires some response. I welcome the fact that he is considering both voluntary arrangements and reserve powers, though it is a little much to be asked to wait until the publication of the White Paper in the autumn.
Those matters commanded the support of both Conservative and Opposition Back-Bench Members of the Committee. I cannot recall any other Committee stage of a Bill in which every Conservative Back Bencher and every Opposition Member spoke in favour of an amendment but there was no movement by the Government on Report. I hope that later in this short debate my hon. Friend the Minister will put some flesh on the bones of what precisely he means by taking reserve powers and considering voluntary arrangements.
The faults in the present system are parochialism and a lack of professionalism. They will continue unabated in the new system if we do not do something to improve the legislation. Even if it is not improved in this House, I hope that in the other place when the Bill is considered in detail the comments made by everyone who supported my amendment in Committee will be read carefully.
There has been a catalogue of failure by local authorities throughout the land. The Select Commit tee found considerable evidence of that failure in the form of adverse consequences for the environment. Only one local authority in the country—Staffordshire county council—has a waste disposal officer of principal officer grade. In many other local authorities this responsibility has actually been downgraded over the years, despite its importance—

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Run by one man and a dog.

Mr. Jones: Indeed—almost literally so, although I am never quite sure what function the dog had.
Low staffing, low pay, low morale and a lack of consideration by authorities have been responsible for failures in policy and in complying with legislation. It is extraordinary that, all these years after the requirement for waste disposal plans, there are still local authorities that have not produced them. I know that the Minister has been keen to pursue that point, but I understand that some local authorities have still not submitted plans, and the plans of some of those that have are weak to say the least.
I still believe that the only way in which the Government can produce a framework that will lead to high-quality officers with specialisation and resources will be to concentrate them in a scheme that is parallel to that of the water authorities, the water plcs, and the regional branches of the National Rivers Authority. Ground water and waste are indissolubly linked because of the effects of hazardous and toxic wastes on ground water. It would be sensible to follow the lines that were unanimously agreed by the Select Committee and to create regional waste disposal authorities.
The amendments relate to a reserve power on which my hon. Friend the Minister touched in his opening remarks, and amendment No. 241 mentions a specific set of proposals. I am not wedded to either idea. I have said several times during consideration of this subject that I am prepared to be open minded and flexible about the answer to this problem—but of two things I am certain: the present arrangements leave far too much to local authorities that are not sufficiently staffed for the task, and, even given the strengthening of controls under this excellent Bill, they will still suffer from many disadvantages. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on what he has already said and will reassure me and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: At the beginning of the year people in Manchester, together with the Manchester Evening News, ran an impressive campaign against litter. The Minister starred in it, on at least one occasion chastising one of the local authorities for its failure to pick up litter. I approve of the Minister's campaign on litter, but I suggest to him and to the Manchester Evening News that there are two approaches to the problem. One is to stop people dropping litter; the other is to reduce the amount of litter that people are likely to have.
I was disappointed in Committee not to hear more enthusiasm from the Minister for minimal packaging. In this country products are wrapped up far too much and there is a great deal of scope for reducing the amount of


packaging and hence the amount of rubbish that ends up having to be disposed of, whether properly—through the dustbin and refuse collection system—or dropped about.
I shall not, as I did in Committee, use visual aids and unwrap a shirt, but all hon. Members will be aware of how much packaging there is around a man's shirt, some of which I find infuriating when I am trying to remove the plastic and pins in a hurry to put the shirt on. Most of it is wholly unnecessary, and there are many other examples.
The other day I was amazed when I collected a set of photographs that I had had printed in a local shop. I was given them back in a little wallet, as is traditional—the negatives in one side, the prints in the other. However, the wallet was placed in a self-sealing envelope on which my name was written and that in turn was placed in a small envelope provided by the shop. Finally, the whole thing was put in a natty little carrier bag which bore an advertisement for the shop. Almost all that packaging was unnecessary.
Such examples when shopping are common. In Committee hon. Members gave examples of fast and convenience foods in fancy cardboard boxes that try to convince us that the food inside is edible. The Minister has said that a great deal is being done to reduce packaging, but a great deal of lobbying from the industry has failed to convince me that attempts to reduce packaging are having any impact. I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress will be made in this area, and that he will not say that this, too, will be left to the White Paper which can then be presented to the Tory party conference. It should be dealt with properly in the House.
Next, I refer to a booklet entitled
A Load of Old Rubbish! A guide to recycling in Tameside",
which is put out by the Ashton Council of Churches. I congratulate that council on producing such a good guide to recycling. We all know of examples of voluntary groups, local authorities and others producing guidance on recycling, but the Ashton Council of Churches has taken a lot of trouble to examine issues that people do not usually talk about. We all talk about paper, plastic and bottles, but this document goes into great detail about ways in which other items can be recycled—sewing machines, tools, wool, and a vast number of other products.
There is a great deal of scope for that sort of recycling and I pay tribute to all voluntary groups and local councillors who are involved in it, particularly to groups that manage to keep projects going for a long time. The worst aspect of paper collections, for instance, is that groups embark on them for a few months; then prices fall and they give up. The local group to which I hand my paper—St Thomas's Heaton Chapel school parents' association—has kept the project going for many years and I pay tribute to its efforts to maintain continuity. But I am worried about appeals such as the Blue Peter appeal for aluminium cans, which briefly distort the market and then disappear.
I ask the Minister not only to encourage household recycling of materials, but to put much more Government emphasis on post-collection sorting. People can sort out their bottles and papers, thereby making some contribution, and if they do that in the next few years, well and good; but that will not be a long-term solution. Sorting by

the householder will reduce some waste and ensure some recycling, but the most effective way of dealing with the problem is to ensure that waste disposal authorities re-sort all household waste.
I was much impressed, when I went to Greater Manchester waste disposal authority's experimental plant at Radcliffe, to see how far it had gone in being able to sort household rubbish into materials that can be reclaimed. I understand that that has also been done in Birmingham and elsewhere, although almost all the projects are at the experimental stage and are not yet commercial. It will be very good for the environment if we can set up plants that will sort out paper and plastics, sort plastics into various grades, separate glass, aluminium and other tins and produce a residue that will make a good compost.
The Government take the view that they will encourage these recycling initiatives by making landfill sites expensive. The new clause does not deal with that and we could go much further. First, we should make sure that there is a guaranteed price for recycled materials. That would be one of the most helpful things that the Government could do. There is no point in encouraging the collection of paper, whether by individual groups or by a sorting process, unless there is a market for it. That applies to all other waste materials.
We must also ensure that waste disposal plants are reasonably close to the points of collection. Greater Manchester council has been collecting tin cans for some time, but almost half the profit is lost in the cost of transporting them to Hartlepool, which has the only detinning plant in the country. The Government should look carefully at encouraging waste disposal authorities or the new companies that are to be set up to look at ways in which they can put in sorting plants. Such plants are expensive, but they are the best way to ensure that all collected rubbish is recycled. That brings me to the question of the size of unit that is required for waste disposal.
Some areas are far too small and do not benefit from the economies of scale that are available with a large-scale plant and not enough plastic, glass or tin will be produced if the separating plant is too small. I was horrified to find that one of the local authorities in my constituency was talking about going to the Minister to see whether it could be separated from the rest of Greater Manchester to become a disposal authority. We have heard about one man and a dog. Stockport would be far too small to reach the required standards. Greater Manchester is just about big enough to deal with the matter. I support the approach of the Select Committee of looking at regional waste disposal and I am certainly not in favour of having it carried out by individual local authorities.
It is important to reduce the amount of waste through better packaging and the Government should encourage local authorities to go in for close collection sorting to that they can reclaim everything from rubbish and can also make sure that there is a market. In the meantime, we should continue with household sorting, although it is not the long-term solution. The long-term solution is to make sure that the disposal authorities can reclaim virtually everything from the refuse that they collect.

Mr. Paul Marland: I want to take part in the debate because I am anxious to discover the extent and overall effectiveness of new clause 30 now


and in the future in connection with the emission of harmful gases, whether they are those that we know of now or new ones that will be discovered.
There is enormous concern throughout the British Isles about the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere. Consumer pressure has done much to reduce that emission because one of the major sources of CFC gas was aerosols. Insulated containers and wall insulation in houses and refrigerators are another gigantic source of CFC gas and attempts to reduce CFC emissions from those sources have so far been small and unco-ordinated. Can the clause be used to regulate against the release of CFCs in the future when technology is available to extract them from insulation materials?
I am concerned not only about CFCs but about the gas emissions from the dumping of cadmium and mercury batteries that are used in Walkmans and transistor radios. They currently go to landfill but technology exists to clean them up before they are dumped. It is not now a cost-effective exercise, but perhaps it will be in future. Who knows what other gases and substances we may learn about in the future.
It is beyond doubt that CFCs, halons and related chemicals are causing massive depletion of the ozone layer and giving rise to a substantial increase in the global greenhouse effect. I and other hon. Members attended a briefing meeting on Thursday chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). We heard first hand from Joe Farman of the British Antarctic survey, who was the leader of the team that first reported on the thinning of the ozone layer, about the damaging effect of the build-up of ozone-depleting gases and the effect that that will have on the planet.
Mr. Farman's presentation was technical but nevertheless chilling about the long-term effects. The ozone layer shields the earth's surface from damaging ultra-violet radiation. A weakened ozone layer could mean millions of extra cases of skin cancer, cataracts and possibly infectious diseases. Enormous damage would also be caused to the natural environment, ranging from substantial losses in crop yields to potential collapse of the marine food chain. Climatic disruption from the greenhouse effect will bring havoc to the world's agriculture, coast lines and forests, and resulting stresses will threaten to fracture the economic, social and political structures that are necessary for global security and development. We in the developed world have a responsibility to do something about that.
My speech deals mainly with CFCs, but in a few years who knows what other gases could be emitted from the earth to deplete the ozone layer. One of the main characteristics of CFC gas is that it is an efficient and inexpensive propellant. Friends of the Earth told us at Thursday's presentation that 62 per cent. of CFC released into the atmosphere comes from aerosols—or it did, because consumer pressure has substantially reduced the amount of CFC that aerosols give out. Obviously, that is of tremendous advantage in saving the ozone layer.
Some 12 per cent. of CFC emissions are from solvents or cleaners, but there, too, consumer pressure is bearing down on the industries producing those materials and doing something to try to solve the problem. The remaining 26 per cent. comes from refrigerators and foam insulation. As the first two sources that I mentioned of CFC emission are reduced, the 26 per cent. emission will become much greater. What is being done about that? Some county councils are milking refrigerators of the

coolant which circulates inside the appliance and which is a mixture of lubricating oil and CFC. Gloucestershire county council was one of the first to do that, and all credit to it for that. However, it is a haphazard and piecemeal operation.
It costs Gloucestershire county council about £3·50 per fridge but the council has no idea what happens to the CFC gas when it has been extracted. It does not know whether the contractor takes it around the back of a shed and releases it into the atmosphere. CFC does not smell, cannot be seen and is not harmful to humans. The source of refrigerators for Gloucestershire county council is the county tip to which people bring fridges voluntarily. The council receives only a few of the refrigerators that are destroyed in Gloucestershire out of the many hundreds that are scrapped every month. The frightening aspect is that the coolant in a refrigerator represents only 20 per cent. of the total CFC within the appliance. The remaining 80 per cent. is contained in the insulating foam around the cabinet.
What is being done about the technology for removing the CFC from that foam? The technology is in its infancy, but I hope that help is on the horizon. As hon. Members will know, I am the parliamentary adviser to the British Scrap Federation. Through the federation I have met one of its leading members, the Bird Group, which is working with Lindamanns, a highly respected West German company, and ICI to try to solve this problem. The company has taken the trouble to familiarise the Government with much of its work and a great deal of interest has been shown in the project, not only by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, but by other Ministers.
Squeezing CFC gases out of insulation foam is right at the sharp end of metal recycling technology and, because of the nature of the objects handled, and the need to contain the gas at all stages, the operation is expensive. The value of recycled metal from a scrap refrigerator is about £1·60, and the CFC is virtually worthless. On present calculations, the shortfall between the value of the saleable material and the cost of safely processing the fridge and transporting it to the site is about £18 per unit.
8 pm
The Gloucestershire county council has demonstrated its willingness to underwrite such a project in a modest way, but the whole project of containing CFC from foam will be put in jeopardy and progress towards widespread CFC recovery will be pitifully slow unless it is made mandatory, or there are financial incentives for industry, or legislation enacting the "polluter pays" principle is strengthened.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that new clause 26 can provide incentives for those involved in recycling if it will not stand on its own feet, so I hope to see something helpful. Public pressure to encourage such action is building up, and that is backed by many in the industry. In virtually every high street, shops selling new refrigerators urge people to dispose of their old refrigerators properly rather than just dumping them.
The problem is growing and is becoming more embarrassing for the Government. One third of CFCs is in Government-controlled equipment—blood banks, munitions stores, mortuaries and so on. A recent report from the Department of Trade and Industry estimated that our CFC bank—the CFCs in existing working refrigerators


and so on—exceeds 100,000 tonnes. The report also said that the disposal of CFC-containing waste will be a problem for the reclamation industry, causing it to reject the waste. The problem will then become transferred to the municipal waste disposal sector, which will similarly be unable to cope.
The technology to squeeze foam dry of CFC is not practised on a large commercial scale anywhere in the world. The development of a United Kingdom plant would be a world first, and the cost of the process would fall as the techniques improved. This technology could then be exported and Great Britain could claim a world first. We would be the first country not only to discover the depletion of the ozone layer but to do something serious about it on a big scale. In answer to a question from me on 26 July 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that this technology must be cracked.
I ask that the Department of Trade and Industry identify itself closely with this important project for reducing CFC released into the atmosphere from foam and insulation material. Secondly, I am anxious to learn whether new clause 30 can be used to implement legislation for the control of emissions of CFC and other noxious gases, odours and substances when the technology is available to control that.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am aware that time is short and that we want to move on to other matters, but I should like to place on record some aspects of my party's attitude to new clause 30 in particular and others of the new clauses grouped with it.
New clause 30 incorporates many aspects of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but a whole host of powers in that Act have yet to be invoked, 16 years after it received Royal Assent. Eleven of its sections, starting at section 6 and ending at section 103, have not yet been used. It is extraordinary that there has not been the will to invoke those sections to protect the environment. One hopes that, if this Bill becomes an Act, there will be a greater will to invoke its sections.
We support new clause 20, which requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to promote a reduction in the volume of waste, and new clause 26, which gives incentives for recycling and includes financial incentives and guaranteed prices for recycled products.
I draw the attention of the Minister to a serious incident in my constituency. Some 10 million tyres were dumped near a village called Heyope and then set on fire by an arsonist in the autumn. This released 11 toxic materials into water courses and only the efforts of the National Rivers Authority in stemming the pollution prevented a major pollution incident. Nevertheless, 4 million water consumers downstream in the west midlands would have been affected if the fire had got out of control. The drinking water from the river Teme would have been undrinkable.
This serious incident arose because far too many tyres were dumped. Tyres should be recycled and made into other products such as rubber matting. It is no longer acceptable to dump tyres in the countryside. One hopes that the DTI and the tyre industry will clean up their act. We believe that there should be tax measures to make recycling more attractive. This could improve our balance of payments by reducing our imports of paper pulp and aluminium. Making all bottles and jars reusable or recyclable as soon as possible would also help.
The law should insist that the industries concerned provide recycling facilities, and that is true of the tyre industry. Local authorities should be able to give a rebate for every tonne of waste that is recycled. There should be legislation to encourage the use of packaging designed for recycling. We would welcome any such measures arising out of the Bill.
New clause 28, which deals with waste disposal authorities, is linked closely to amendments Nos. 241 and 242. I agree with much that the Minister said about this. New clause 28 would undermine the establishment of arms-length companies to separate waste disposal and regulation, both of which are performed by the counties in many parts of England.
Amendment No. 68 refers to Scotland and Scottish authorities, but the Welsh Select Committee recently published a report on waste disposal and waste disposal authorities in Wales, which are different from those in England, because the districts in Wales are the waste disposal authorities. We should like to think that we are further down the road in waste disposal because we have three voluntary regional groupings in Wales which are there to advise.
It is significant that the Welsh Select Committee recommended that the three regional groups be given statutory powers that would cover licensing, monitoring and technical expertise. However, it felt that planning should remain the responsibility of district councils in Wales, because that is where democratic control and accountability reside. It is particularly important that it should remain there because if waste disposal sites are imposed there will be a grave undermining of the democratic process and communities will feel powerless to protect their areas.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 refer to imports and exports. The House will recall the way in which toxic waste was hawked around half the world by the Karin B, and will thereby appreciate the need for tight controls. It is rather alarming that special waste imports, which are classified in the European Communities as toxic and hazardous wastes, increased from 3,000 tonnes in 1981–82 to 80,000 tonnes in 1987–88. In my party's view, all wastes originating in OECD countries should be disposed of in the country of origin and should not be exported to other countries.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: In many areas in the Netherlands the ground is not suitable for the disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes. Does the hon. Gentleman still think that there is no case for international trade? Secondly, does he agree with the European Community view that such trade, provided that it is properly controlled and professionally dealt with, is valid and acceptable?

Mr. Livsey: I do not agree with the argument that lies behind the hon. Gentleman's second question. We have surely reached the stage at which a stop should be put to the trade in toxic and hazardous wastes. I accept that special provision may have to be made for countries such as the Netherlands where there is a high water table.
My colleagues and I have no wish to see imports of toxic wastes directly to landfill sites in the United Kingdom. Such imports should be stopped immediately. They are certainly not in the interest of the environment of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bellingham: My remarks will be directed to new clause 58 and amendments Nos. 241 and 242 which, in effect, were tabled by the Select Committee on the Environment. First, I declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors and an unremunerated managing director of a recycling company.
I endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on new clause 58. He summed up eloquently and succinctly the arguments that were advanced in Standing Committee and those that were presented by the members of the Select Committee. The Minister will be aware that Select Committees, Standing Committees, and other bodies have strongly favoured the concept of regional groupings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to wide variations throughout the country, and we know that with 190 waste disposal authorities there will be a great deal of disparity. There will be tremendous differences in their practices and standards. We know that many of the old WDAs have not filed their waste disposal plans. It is disgraceful that 150 have not done so. When representatives of the Institute of Wastes Management gave evidence to the Select Committee they said that the variation in performance is enormous. They said that in some areas the function of waste disposal has been downgraded to the extent that it has become a Cinderella service that is undertaken by a man and a dog, as it were. In the better authorities the function is taken much more seriously. I shall not rehearse those arguments.
Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will have considerable default powers if it is found that an authority is not doing its job properly. What happens, however, if the entire system starts to go wrong? What happens if what the Select Committee anticipates, and what the Standing Committee anticipated, takes place and there is a wide variation in performance? It would seem that there is a serious regional diversity in performance and professionalism. Surely the Secretary of State should have the reserve powers that are being sought. We are not saying that the Secretary of State must have such powers as a matter of course. We are saying only that there should be reserve powers in future if things do not work out properly and if this excellent Bill, which will shortly become an Act, does not provide a structure for waste disposal of the sort for which we hope.
8.15 pm
Perhaps the reserve powers will not be necessary, but why run the risk of having to introduce another Bill in two, three or four years time, or whatever? I anticipate that the Select Committee will re-examine the matter. If it comes to the conclusion that the Bill should have had fall-back provisions, it will say, "What a wasted opportunity". The new clause is not asking for very much, and it is not enough to say that everything will be included in a White Paper and considered.
Apart from waste disposal, we must consider the regional structure of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. We must consider also the drinking water directive and how it will interface with and impinge upon various other matters.
We have a golden opportunity to amend the Bill to give the Secretary of State reserve powers. I hope that my hon.

Friend the Minister will recognise that in Committee there was unanimous support for the concept. That position was shared by the all-party Select Committee. When the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs considered the matter only the other day, that was also clearly its view.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use this opportunity to give a firm undertaking that the Government will reconsider the matter and introduce a new clause in the other place that will put things right.
My amendment No. 316 would enable a waste regulation authority, when it has determined whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a waste management licence, to say that that fact should be a material consideration in any other application for a waste management licence for any other waste regulation authority. The issue was discussed in Committee and the Minister said, in effect, that he was extremely sympathetic to my argument. We have many national waste disposal companies and each one may operate in many different parts of the country. Obviously they will be operating under the auspices of several different authorities. It is for those authorities to assess whether a company is a fit and proper person.
Waste regulation authorities will be fairly hard pressed on the bureaucratic and administrative fronts. A national company that has been accepted as a fit and proper person by, perhaps, 20 waste regulation authorities may not be accepted by one or two others. The amendment seeks to provide that the waste regulation authorities should take account of the fact that another authority has already carried out the exercise of determining whether a company is a fit and proper person and has reached a positive conclusion. It is a modest amendment.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister asked what would happen if an individual operated a number of different facilities. I recall that he mentioned a mobile plant or incinerator at a landfill site. That consideration can be taken care of—I wish that I had thought of this at the time—by the licence conditions. The facility will have to be operated by someone who is competent to do so. I do not think that the argument that my hon. Friend advanced in Committee holds water. I hope that he will reconsider the matter along the lines of the undertaking that he gave in Committee and accept my modest amendment. I had the devil's own job trying to find my way around the amendment paper because of the number of new clauses and amendments and the way in which they are spaced out. I have been pulling out my hair most of the afternoon—

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Balding.

Mr. Bellingham: I am not bald yet, although I do not have the same amount of facial hair as my hon. Friend.
Government amendment No. 97 refers to so framing
the terms and conditions as to avoid undue discrimination in favour of one description of waste disposal contractor as against other descriptions of waste disposal contractors.
Why do we need the word "undue"? Surely there is no need for it. If it is not deleted, that surely means that the Government accept that there will be some discrimination. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with that point. It is a matter of considerable concern that the amendment is faulty. If the word "undue" remains, there will be serious problems.

Mr. Pike: I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 241. Had time permitted, I would have wished to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) when he referred to CFCs, a subject in which he has great interest. He will recall that I was in the chair for the latter part of the meeting on the Thursday to which he referred. We were all interested in the presentation. It was clear that, even with the current action, there is still a long way to go in dealing with these issues. It is no use trying to limit the use of CFCs in this country if we continue to manufacture and export them. We must carefuly consider alternatives and also labelling. If there were time, I would expand that debate, because it is of great importance and we should be concerned about it. If CFC production and all emissions into the atmosphere were stopped now, it would be 70 years before there was any positive improvement. That statistic illustrates the scale of the problem.
As the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) said, amendment No. 241 should have my name on it. I do not know how the error arose. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) also signed the amendment. The debate in Committee on this issue was the best that I have experienced since I came to the House. Not only should it have persuaded the Government of the problem, but it should have convinced anyone listening to the case that recommendation 23 of the Select Committee in its second report of 1988–89 was most sensible. Indeed, that recommendation followed closely the recommendation that led to the establishment of the National Rivers Authority following the investigation into river and estuary pollution a few years ago. The logic for proposing 10 regulatory authorities is identical to that proposed, and ultimately accepted, during the passage of the Water Act 1989. That is why we find it difficult to understand why the Government are not prepared to accept this recommendation when they accepted the previous recommendation.
The whole issue rests on whether it is possible for a body that is carrying out certain functions, whether disposal or collection, also to be the regulatory body. We are minded to support the proposal because we believe that there is a strong case that if regulation is to be seen to be independent and objective, it is better to separate it from the responsibility of carrying out a function.
As I said in Committee, the Bill divides responsibility for collection, disposal and regulation in different ways throughout the country. I do not intend to waste the time of the House by going into detail, but there is no single system for England and Wales. There is an extremely good case for accepting amendment No. 241. There is a strong link between waste disposal and leachates into the water with areas roughly corresponding with the NRA. We are not prepared to say whether that should go to an environmental protection agency, although there is a good case for that. The Labour party is committed to the principle of an environmental protection agency, as is the Select Committee on the Environment—by unanimous decision on more than one occasion.
If a Labour Government were to introduce such a body following the next election, it could be argued that such a function should go to regional councils. However, it would be wrong for the Minister to divert along that avenue tonight. We should use this opportunity to ensure that there is even-handed regulation throughout the country, with issues being considered objectively and in the best interests of the environment. This is a Bill to protect the

environment. When I have referred to it as the Environmental Protection Bill, on more than one occasion the Minister has said that it is not only about protection but about enhancement. Both sides of the House accept that. The amendment is a step in that direction.
If the Minister does not accept the amendment or agree to introduce an amendment in another place, there will have to be further legislation within two or three years. He may not be in government then because, I hope, the Labour party will be in office. However, whoever is in government in two or three years' time will have to accept that the direction recommended by the Select Committee and embodied in amendment No. 241 is the right way to move forward and is in the best environmental interests. The Government should accept the amendment because it is a sensible and constructive proposal. The Minister should respond positively to the debate.

Mr. Trippier: What a pity. I was about to respond to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—my neighbouring Member of Parliament in Costa del Lancashire—by saying that I agreed with most of what he said, but he blew it out of the water by coming out with absolute drivel at the end of his remarks. That devalued the currency of what he had said previously. Neither he nor my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) can have it both ways.
This is a serious matter. Hon. Members must stop saying that Ministers will address the matter in a White Paper. The truth is that what has been suggested in this interesting debate is extremely radical—the joining together of regulatory agencies that would incorporate not only waste regulation but the National Rivers Authority. That was specifically mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West. In addition, although no one has mentioned it yet—although it slipped between the cracks—perhaps the drinking water inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution should be included.
If we want to follow that route, the issues need to be carefully considered. It needs to be a strategy for the 1990s. The way in which I am responding to the debate fits closely with what the hon. Member for Burnley wants. I give him the solemn undertaking that we shall consider the issues in that light. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, West and for Norfolk, North-West that we shall consider those matters at one and the same time. One cannot strip out from a regulatory agency—whether it is responsible for matters relating to pollution of the land, water or atmosphere—one particular regulatory function from a White Paper dealing with the enhancement of the environment to the end of the century. That would be ludicrous.
I take on board the points made by hon. Members who are members also of the Environment Select Committee and repeat my assurance that we shall examine them. The hon. Member for Burnley is right to say that something must be done. If the way in which we should proceed over the next decade is to be spelt out, legislation must be introduced to bring that policy into being.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister accept that the Government have already done as I suggest, with the establishment of the National Rivers Authority? We are only asking them to adopt the same approach in respect of this Bill.

Mr. Trippier: That the Government did so is the hon. Gentleman's opinion, not a statement of fact. Such an approach does not fit very neatly between, for example, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. It does not fit neatly either with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Should we or should we not move more towards the situation that appertains under the sponsorship of the Department of Employment? It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound.
We are clear that those issues must be addressed, and the hon. Member for Burnley need not tear his hair—to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West—waiting for the White Paper, as he will have to wait only until September.
I assure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that there is no lack of commitment to recycling on the part of the Government. Perhaps she prepared her speaking notes before hearing my introductory remarks, in which I referred to the new credit system that we shall introduce in respect of recycling. I touched also on waste minimisation.
I did not say—and I do not want the record to remain uncorrected—that we would have a national register of contaminated land. That is nothing like what I said. I said that we are making it compulsory for all district authorities to keep such a register, which is somewhat different from a national register. It would be extremely difficult to keep a national register up to date, and wrong to put local authorities through the wringer in trying to keep up with the dreadful bureaucracy that such a register would demand. However, I think that the hon. Lady shares my concern that there should be increased awareness among potential developers and others who may go near contaminated land that it is contaminated. I am prepared to meet her on that point.
I shall return to the question of a national strategy—let us at least agree on that phrase—for waste disposal in my concluding remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West asked me to put flesh on the bones of the reserve powers to which I referred in my introductory remarks. Amendment No. 242 makes as good a starting point as any. I share my hon. Friend's view that there is a need to ensure consistent regulation of a high standard in the metropolitan areas. I draw his attention to the powers that were given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Local Government Act 1985 to give directions to metropolitan borough councils to establish a form of regulation satisfactory to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West will recall that the 1985 Act dealt with the dismemberment of the metropolitan county councils. We are considering the reserve powers that that legislation gives in terms of the new statute. It may be possible to transform or to transpose them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred to CFC disposal. I agree that the disposal and reclamation of CFCs is not something that

we should lose sight of when debating ozone-depleting substances. Disposal must be by total destruction of the molecule, through incineration. A better option is recycling, provided that it can be done safely. As my hon. Friend said, we have discussed the matter on several occasions—not only in Committee but at my Department. I am pleased that a British company, the Bird Group, is at the forefront of developing equipment safely to remove CFCs from various types of machinery. My hon. Friend catalogued them. In that technology, the Bird Group is, I believe, a world leader. We hope that its equipment will be of great benefit both environmentally and commercially. The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned a study on the recovery, recycling and destruction of CFCs, for which the Bill provides ample powers.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked whether the Government are committed to the minimisation of packaging. We are, and are currently reviewing the recycling of all materials and of packaging in particular. The options are currently being discussed with the Department of Trade and Industry. They include mandatory deposits and raw material levies. My Department participates with the DTI in the recycling forum. Recently, two of the 10 expert groups in that forum reported on glass and paper recycling, and the Government are considering those reports now.
The only aspect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that unnerved me was his apparent preference for the post-collection sorting mechanism for dealing with waste for recycling. I ask him seriously to consider the Sheffield experiment, which I am pleased to say has the support of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, using pre-collection sorting. I invite all-party support for that superb initiative, which is backed by the Government, the Post Office and Friends of the Earth, working in partnership to ensure that it is a success. If it is, I should love to see it replicated throughout the United Kingdom. That would mark a dramatic step forward in our objective of recycling 50 per cent. of domestic waste.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If it is true that Manchester and Birmingham waste disposal authorities can recycle just as much, if not more, by post-collection sorting than by pre-collection sorting of the type used for the Sheffield scheme, that overcomes the problem of householders who find it extremely difficult to sort their waste—such as the handicapped or elderly. The Minister knows that, although the Sheffield experiment is a great success, some people still refuse, sadly, to co-operate by sorting their waste.

Mr. Trippier: There is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I cannot disagree with his observation. The majority of the people in the Sheffield experiment co-operate, and the signal that should go from the House today is that we very much welcome their support. It is common sense that if waste is sorted before collection—known as kerb collection in Sheffield—the cost will be lower than if someone else has to undertake that chore later at the sorting bay.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West on his precise amendment No. 316, which clearly recognises the argument that a licensee who is perfectly fit to hold a licence for one operation may not be suitable for another. His amendment seeks to make the fact that an applicant has once been judged fit and proper


a material consideration in making judgment of his fitness for another licence. Even so, I am not, I regret to say, prepared to accept my hon. Friend's amendment. It is essential that a licensing authority should judge each applicant for a licence on his or her merits in relation to a particular operation. I give my hon. Friend my assurance that detailed guidance to local authorities, which they will statutorily be bound to regard, will cover that aspect, together with all other matters concerning fit and proper persons.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and several other hon. Members referred to a national strategy on waste. I have already referred to the delight that I felt when senior officials consulted senior officers in the local authority associations that want to move in that direction. It is a problem that can be dealt with only in terms of self-sufficiency on a regional basis and I am the first to accept that. An effective target could be for each region in the United Kingdom to be self-sufficient in waste disposal. Many hon. Members know that that is not the case. Some hon. Members represent constituencies in regions that are massive exporters of waste, which means that other regions have to take more than their fair share. I am reluctant to mention a particular region, but hon. Members know that we have had considerable deliberations about one part of the country that is north of Watford—so I can hardly be accused of being anti-southern—where we need a more rational approach to that incredible problem.
The Opposition remonstrated with me and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to speed up the programme announced at the North sea conference for the disposal of treated sewage sludge. Will any Opposition Member who was in Committee who wishes us to accelerate the programme—remember that we can dispose of such waste only in landfill or through incineration—nominate a landfill or incinerator site in their constituency? Suddenly everything goes quiet, and no one wishes to participate in the debate any more.

Mr. Bellingham: Has my hon. Friend had the chance to consider my remarks about the word "undue"? Will he delete that word?

Mr. Trippier: I feel that I am under an obligation to consider that. It is clearly a legal point, and if I am able to accommodate my hon. Friend, I shall ensure that the word is changed prior to the Bill going to another place.

Ms. Walley: The Minister clearly has a problem about the extent to which arrangements can be made to organise the proper disposal of waste. In view of what he has said, I do not think that we have had a final answer on how he will deal with amendments tabled by many of his hon. Friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

APPLICATION OF PART II TO ISLES OF SCILLY

'Part II shall have effect in its application to the Isles of Scilly with such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 56

POWERS IN RELATION TO ABANDONED SHOPPING AND LUGGAGE TROLLEYS

'.—(1) A local authority may resolve that Schedule (Abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys) is to apply in its area; and if a local authority does so resolve, that Schedule shall come into force in its area on the day specified in the resolution, which must not be before the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the resolution is passed.

(2) A local authority shall publish in at least one newspaper circulating in its area a notice that the authority has passed a resolution under this section and indicating the general effect of that Schedule.

(3) It shall be the duty of a local authority from time to time to consult about the operation of Schedule (Abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys) with the persons or representatives of persons who appear to be affected by its operation.

(4) In this section "local authority" means—

(a) the council of a district;
(b) the council of a London borough;
(c) the Common Council of the City of London;
(d) the council of the Isles of Scilly; and
(e) in Scotland, an islands or district council.

(5) In Schedule (Abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys) "the local authority" means any local authority which has resolved that that Schedule is to apply in its area.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35

RISK ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

'.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (7) below, no person shall import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms unless, before doing that act—

(a) he has carried out an assessment of the potential of the organisms for causing harm and of any risks there may be (by reference to the nature of the organisms and the manner in which he intends to keep them after their importation or acquisition or, as the case may be, to release them) of damage to the environment being caused as a result of doing that act; and
(b) in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed, he has given the Secretary of State such notice of his intention of doing that act and such information as may be prescribed.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a person proposing to do an act mentioned in that subsection who is required under section 93(1)(a) below to have a consent before doing that act.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (7) below, a person who is keeping genetically modified organisms shall, in such cases or circumstances and at such times or intervals, as may be prescribed—

(a) carry out an assessment of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them;
(b) give the Secretary of State notice of the fact that he is keeping the organisms and such information as may be prescribed.

(4) Subsection (3) above does not apply to a person who is keeping genetically modified organisms and is required under section 93(1A) below to have a consent authorising him to continue to keep the organisms.

(5) It shall be the duty of a person who carries out an assessment under subsection (1)(a) or (3)(a) above to keep, for the prescribed period, such a record of the assessment as may be prescribed.

(6) A person required by subsection (1)(b) or (3)(b) above to give notice to the Secretary of State shall give the Secretary of State such further information as the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require.

(7) Regulations under this section may provide for exemptions, or for the granting by the Secretary of State of exemptions to particular persons or classes of person, from the requirements of subsection (1) or (3) above in such cases or circumstances, and to such extent, as may be prescribed.

(8) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) give directions to a person falling within subsection (1) above requiring that person to apply for a consent before doing the act in question; or
(b) give directions to a person falling within subsection (3) above requiring that person, before such date as may be specified in the direction, to apply for a consent authorising him to continue keeping the organisms in question;

and a person given directions under paragraph (a) above shall then, and a person given directions under paragraph (b) above shall from the specified date, be subject to section 93 below in place of the requirements of this section.

(9) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prescribe the manner in which assessments under subsection (1) or (3) above are to be carried out and the matters which must be investigated and assessed;
(b) prescribe minimum periods of notice between the giving of a notice under subsection (1)(b) above and the doing of the act in question;
(c) make provision allowing the Secretary of State to shorten or to extend any such period;
(d) prescribe maximum intervals at which assessments under subsection (3)(a) above must be carried out;

and the regulations may make different provision for different cases and different circumstances.

(10) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations under this section.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government new clause 36—General duties relating to importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of organisms.
Government new clause 37—Prohibition notices
Government new clause 40—Consents: limitations and conditions
Government new clause 41—Onus of proof as regards techniques and evidence
Government new clause 38—Power of court to order cause of offence to be remedied
Government new clause 39—Power of Secretary of State to remedy harm

New clause 8—Genetic Modification Commission—
' (1) There shall be established a body to be called the Genetic Modification Commission (in this Clause referred to as "the Commission") to perform the functions assigned to the Commission by or under this Clause.

(2) The members of the Commission, of whom there shall be not less than eight, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate.
(3) The Commission shall give to the Secretary of State advice on matters relating to the execution of this Clause of the Act or the exercise of any power conferred by it, or otherwise relating to genetic modification, where the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested by the Secretary of State to do so.'.

New clause 22—Advice and information on genetically modified organisms—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the passing of this Act establish an Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment for the purposes of—

(a) advising him as to the making of regulations under Part VI below;
(b) making such recommendations as it considers appropriate in respect of the future regulation of activities to which Part VI applies;
(c) advising him in respect of each application for a consent to release a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) into the environment.


(2) The Advisory Committee established under this section shall include persons representative of industry, trade unions, local authorities, environmental organisations and scientists with knowledge of the techniques of genetic modification and of the likely effect of the introduction of modified organisms into the environment.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to publish its advice to Ministers and, in respect of advice relating to any applicaton for a consent made under subsection (1)(c) above, to include such advice in any register established under subsection (4) below.
(4) The Advisory Committee shall establish and maintain a register on behalf of the Secretary of State containing prescribed particulars of applications, consents and notifications under Part VI.
(5) In preparing any advice under subsection (1)(c) above relating to applications for consent to the release of GMOs the Advisory Committee shall—

(a) require the applicant to advertise his intention to introduce organisms into the environment and any such advertisement shall include information as to the organisms and the type of modification proposed to be made; the grounds for making the modification; the place or places at or in which the release is to occur; the probable extent of the area in which the organisms may be found; the likely risk to humans; and the likely effects on the environment and other organisms;
(b) consider all representations made following such an advertisement;
(c) advise on the conditions to be applied to the granting of a consent and, where the GMO is to be sold as a product, recommend and give reasons as to whether it should be labelled as a Genetically Modified Organism.


(6) The Secretary of State shall place on the register established under subsection (4) above information relating to any notification of an intention to release a GMO and such information shall include—

(a) a description of the GMO;
(b) the name and address of the notifier;
(c) the reason for the release;
(d) the location of the release;
(e) plans drawn up by the notifier for monitoring the GMO and for dealing with any emergency; and
(f) any other information which may be prescribed by regulations.'.

Government amendments Nos. 268 to 276, 267 and 244.

Amendment No. 131, in clause 91, page 98, line 17 after `it', insert—


'(aa) apply for a consent under subsection (1)(b) of section 93 below'.

Amendment No. 132, in page 98, line 35, leave out subsection (5).

Government amendments Nos. 256 and 262.

Amendment No. 133, in clause 93, page 100, leave out lines 3 to 6.

Government amendment Nos. 277, 245, 263, 291 and 264.

Amendment No. 101, in page 100, line 16 at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations under this section shall provide, in the case of any organism proposed to be imported and for which an assessment of the potential for causing damage to the environment or the risk of such damage has been carried out in any country outside the United Kingdom and is likely to be relevant to the question of deciding whether consent under subsection (1) above is to be granted or the limitations or conditions to be applied to that consent, for details of that assessment to be included with the application and to be taken into account.'.

Government amendment No. 265.

No. 134, in page 100, leave out line 32 and insert
'only in circumstances where a release is proposed to be undertaken within the terms of an existing consent, subject to the giving of such notice and the making of such conditions as the Secretary of State may on the advice of the Advisory Committee specify.'.

Government amendment No. 289.

Amendment No. 308, in page 100, line 40, at end insert—
'(8A) On granting any consent under subsection (6) above the Secretary of State shall—

(a) furnish the person to whom the consent is granted with a certificate containing all material particulars of the consent; and
(b) subject to subsection (8B) below, send a copy of the certificate to each local authority in whose area, in accordance with the consent, genetically modified organisms are to be kept or released, and to the National Rivers Authority.

(8B) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that compliance with paragraph (b) of subsection (8A) above would prejudice the commercial viability of the undertaking concerned he may amend the certificate issued under paragraph (a) of that subsection in such a way as appears to him will protect the viability of that undertaking.'.

Government amendments Nos. 254, 278 to 280, 290, 257, 281, 282, 246 to 258, 266, 255, 248 to 250, 259, 260, 251 to 253, 283 to 287, 261, 295 and 288.

Mr. Trippier: I shall attempt to be brief but to justify this important subject by concentrating on the amendments before the House.
New clause 35 relates to part VI of the Bill. Biotechnology using genetic modification is still in the early stages of development and the existing health and safety controls for genetically modified organisms have a good record which we are determined to maintain.
Part VI will contribute by protecting the environment and will form a unified structure with the existing health and safety controls. We will have a proper system to protect safety and the environment without inhibiting industry or research. Part VI takes fully into account the report last year by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and it implements two EC directives adopted this month.
The proposals allow for risk assessment notification or consent depending on the risk from a GMO release, all

subject to BATNEEC, to protect the environment. Against that background new clause 36 clarifies the BATNEEC requirement, while new clause 40 ensures that BATNEEC operates even where GMO operations have consent from the Secretary of State. If conflict develops between consent conditions and BATNEEC, the consent holder is to inform the Secretary of State to allow him to review the consent conditions.
New clause 35 sets out the risk assessment and notification requirements. We intend to use subsection (7) to exempt individuals who might import finished GMO products for private use.
New clause 37 improves the conditions on prohibition notices. For example, it requires safe and rapid disposal of GMOs.
New clause 39 provides that where an offence has caused harm the Secretary of State may remedy that harm and may recover the cost from any person convicted of the offence. In parallel, new clause 38 provides for the court to order a person convicted of an offence to remedy matters, and new clause 41 puts the onus of proof in those proceedings on to the accused.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that our new clauses are valuable.
I fear that new clauses 8 and 22 would risk diluting the Secretary of State's responsibility for the operation of part VI and I cannot support such an idea because it is crucial that the Secretary of State should be seen by all to be fully responsible for part VI. Having said that, it is for the Opposition spokesmen to make their case and I shall respond later if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We welcome the fact that the clause has been extensively amended since we were in Committee. In the amendments brought forward by the Government they have picked up many of the points that we wanted to strengthen this part of the Bill.
There is no doubt that the Minister is correct to say that this type of research is in its infancy. We believe that it has potential benefits to our society and we want to see such research encouraged within a tight framework of control that will give protection to the consumer and to society.
We recognise that such research can bring benefits. Plants and animals can be modified to produce important antibodies for medical use. Plant breeders, such as the British Society of Plant Breeders, can improve crop performance, reduce input, build in resistance to stress, disease and pests and can tailor crops to meet the needs of consumers. That promises more environmentally friendly agriculture with less harmful input.
There is no doubt that while those techniques are rapidly advancing, understanding of them is somewhat shallow. The Minister will recognise that there are risks to the environment and to health and safety. He will know that it is possible to produce pathogenic organisms that can be targeted to particular groups in society or to particular organs. It is possible to insert recognition sites into bacteria or viruses that can distinguish between racial groups. Viruses that exist in non-human hosts can be retargeted for human tissues. Bearing those modifications


in mind, one can understand why there has to be tight and detailed control on such research and the release of any organism into society.
We appreciate that the Government are setting up an advisory committee on the release of genetically modified organisms. However, we find it strange that the Government are not in favour of a statutory advisory committee as proposed by new clause 22. Given the seriousness of the situation, we believe that statutory powers are important to any committee. I recognise that the membership of the ad hoc advisory committee, which has already been announced, is welcome. We do not quibble with the wide range of experience of the people that the Minister has chosen to serve on the committee.
The Minister will note, however, that new clause 22 goes further and proposes a series of rights to information. The question of commercial confidentiality arises in terms of the development of GMOs—genetically modified organisms. Organisations and businesses that are doing research into that technology must be protected. However, the needs of the environment and the consumer must be put before commercial confidentiality. We must strike a correct balance between those rights and the legitimate needs of the companies concerned.
New clause 22 recognises that, in line with the recent EC directives on GMOs, there ought to be a right to information in terms of the description of the GMOs, the name and address of the notifier, the reason for the release of the GMO, the location of the release, the plans for monitoring and any other relevant information. These are important rights. The Minister will recall the concern that was expressed by a wide variety of organisations when it was announced that there was to be the commercial release of the world's first commercial food GMO—a form of yeast to be used in commercial bakeries. There was no consultation or warning prior to the announcement. There was no information about a trial programme. Commercial confidentiality should not overrule exclusively the right of consumers to know exactly what is going on and what is being done.
I should appreciate assurances that the Minister accepts the logic of the argument. I draw the House's attention to Government amendment No. 274 under which new subsection (4B) of clause 90 allows the Secretary of State to declare any organism harmless, regardless of its nature. I assume that that is to cover GMOs that have been designed as pesticides. By their very nature, they will do harm to target species. The wording needs to be tightened up. Regulations ought to be laid before Parliament. It should not be done by means of a directive from the Secretary of State.
There is insufficient time to go over all these points in debate. However, I draw attention to that issue in the hope that when the Bill goes to the other place this matter will be considered in greater detail and the wording will be tightened up.
Government new clause 35 removes the requirement to inform the Secretary of State of any assessment of risk. I hope that the Minister will ask the Secretary of State to clarify that point and to ask himself whether that is a wise decision.
Government amendment No. 263 stipulates that applications for consent should be advertised. Is the Minister able to say whether the terms of article 19 of the EC directive on GMOs relating to the information

contained in new clause 22 are recognised in Government amendment No. 263 and whether the Government will comply with the EC directive?
Government amendment No. 289 introduces Government new clause 40. It reinforces the need to use the best available technology that does not entail excessive cost to regulate the release of GMOs. That goes some way towards limiting the liability of those who use GMOs commercially. Is the Minister aware that during the discussion of the EC directive the German Government asked for stricter liability on those who use GMOs commercially? Is not that a better approach? Anyone who releases GMOs would understand such a strict liability. That would be preferable to the requirement to use the best available technology.
I accept that Government new clause 39 goes some way towards meeting the criticism. It allows the Secretary of State to take action if there is damage or to recover costs that have been incurred, due to the irresponsible or illegal release of a GMO. However, I wonder whether that provision will be undermined by the fact that it is riot always possible to recover costs. It would be much better to clarify from the beginning that any organisation that intends to release a commercial GMO must accept liability for any damage that is caused. It might also deter any speculative development of GMOs when there is no obvious direct benefit to be derived from their production. The social consequences of producing such organisms must be taken into account. That must be considered by the advisory committee.
GMOs can be beneficial. They should be encouraged. The amendments to part VI are, in the main, welcome, apart from those matters that I have identified. I hope that the Minister will think again about these points and give the assurances that we need.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When part VI of the Bill was debated in Committee we accused the Government of having drafted it hurriedly. The number of amendments and new clauses bears testimony to that fact. Initially, there were 15 clauses in part VI; five have been deleted. Six new clauses have been tabled and there are no fewer than 60 amendments to this part of the Bill.
The Labour party welcomes the changes. They show that the Government accept many of the points that were made in Committee. Genetic engineering is an exciting aspect of research. I read in The Observer yesterday, yet again, of a little weed whose DNA structure is to be worked out from A to Z. Geneticists will be able to identify the individual genes that are responsible for individual characteristics and may be able to transplant them and produce new strains. It opens up immense possibilities. Widely differing species will be able to be modified much more easily than is possible with present techniques.
In medicine, the opening up of opportunities will be immense. There have been reports of the manufacture of insulin by means of genetic engineering. It may be possible to cure muscular dystrophy and other genetic diseases. It opens up exciting possibilities in cancer research. It will also lead to the possibility of introducing pest resistance or disease resistance in agriculture. However, there are grave dangers to be faced. That is why the safeguards must be complete. We are interfering with nature, in that we are creating new forms of life. When they are released into the environment they multiply. Something that is released for the best of reasons may become a pest.
I thank the Minister for his letter giving the composition of the advisory committee on releases into the environment. We note that he accepted much of the advice that we gave him in Committee and that the advisory committee will be broadly based. However, I wish that its composition had been fairer. Twelve of the 22 members of the committee are academic professors or research workers; three are from industry; three are trade unionists; one member is from the Green Alliance; one is from the Nature Conservancy Council; one is a farmer and one is an environmental health officer. I should have preferred a more balanced composition with far more environmentalists and consumer representatives. Not one single consumer representative will serve on that body. Nevertheless, we broadly welcome the fact that the committee is not comprised solely of scientists.
Must the decisions and recommendations of the advisory committee be unanimous as is the case now with the international introduction sub-committee of the advisory committee on genetic manipulation? As there are good safety reasons for that, we should like that provision to be retained because the consequences of a mistake could be serious.
My next question relates to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment. When the advisory committee reports to the Secretary of State and recommends releases, can the Secretary of State negate that recommendation? When the Committee advises against a release, can the Secretary of State overturn that recommendation? As we find that point disturbing, will the Minister provide a specific answer to the question whether the Secretary of State can advise in favour of a release if the advisory committee has advised against it?
9 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we are particularly anxious because, as drafted, new subsection (4B) of clause 90 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment an incredible power. My reading of it suggests that any harmful organism can be declared harmless almost by the decree of the Secretary of State for the Environment. As the provisions are loosely drawn, perhaps the parliamentary draftsman will reconsider those that seem to give the Secretary of State such extraordinary powers.
We also have reservations about new clause 40 because the liability of those releasing genetically modified organisms is limited by the BATNEEC principle, which means that provided the company conforms to the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, it will be okay. Like the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, we want strict liability so that if anything goes wrong, the company that releases that organism will carry the full financial cost of the consequences.
I understand that in the past few weeks a new Bill has been introduced in West Germany, relating to deliberate releases of GMOs, which stipulates absolute liability and compulsory insurance for those who intend to release such organisms into the environment. If that is what West Germany wants, it is certainly what Britain should have.
New clause 22 relates to the composition of the advisory committee. As I have said, we should like to broaden its base, but, more specifically, we believe that everything to do with releases should be published in a

register. The advice of the advisory committee should be made public as should the Minister's response to that advice. Before any release can be made, the details should be fully advertised to the public so that interested bodies are given the proper opportunity to object. We want openness. If we are to have public confidence, we need maximum openness.
We know that the big companies would be concerned if new clause 22 were accepted. However, if there is a choice between commercial confidentiality and the environment, there should be no question but that the environment should be our overriding concern.
Finally, we believe that it is important to demonstrate social need before undertaking the release of GMOs. We are talking about an incredibly clever technology in which we are creating new life forms. However, if it is simply a case of adding to the food mountains and stockpiles by increasing agricultural yields and producing surplus products, we must question whether we need that technology. It should have to pass a "social need" test. I do not believe that anyone would argue against the medical application of the technology, but, given the possible major problems and dangers, it must pass the test of social need before it is applied to agriculture.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In a sense, all the contributions that I have heard today have been similar. The issue is archetypally one that should not be confined to, for instance, a Standing Committee; our procedures are arguably inadequate to deal with it. Some legislatures allow certain legislation to go to the equivalent of a Select Committee, which can take evidence, and such a process allows informed discussion to take place.
Today's debate is as important as last week's debate on embryology. It concerns what we do with life forms, and how science allows us to intervene in the natural process. As the Minister has accepted—and the record shows that the Standing Committee accepted it, too—the genetic engineering that we are discussing can create not only new life forms, but life forms that may be dangerously uncontrollable, so we must legislate very carefully. Given the constraints that have been placed upon us in the House of Commons, I hope that our decisions will be scrutinised in detail in the other place, and that the best possible advice will be available.
We tabled new clause 8 because we believe that responsibility for genetic engineering should be collective. There should be no Frankenstein creations behind closed doors; the maximum information should be provided, and decisions should not be made in isolation. We are not talking only about animals, for what happens to animals today happens to human beings tomorrow. I understand, for example, that it will soon be possible to identify the gene that governs skin pigmentation. If that is so, we can imagine the possible implications for human genetic engineering. I do not wish to be alarmist, as some hon. Members were in last week's debate, but it occurs to me that, if Hitler had had access to a gene that allowed him to alter skin pigmentation, the history of the 20th century might have been even more distressing.
At the beginning of the century, a fungus called Endothea was released accidentally in the United States. There is evidence that within 40 years it had wiped out the American chestnut within an area of 1 million sq km. Scientific change can become horrendously out of control. That is why new clause 8 suggests the establishment of a


commission a wide—ranging standing public body—whose eminent members could monitor and report developments perpetually.
I do not believe that there is a great deal of disagreement between us and the Minister. I do not insist on principle that ours is the only possible formulation. I am, however, adamant that scientists alone should not be responsible for such activity, and that it should not be in the private domain. A series of scientific experiments will be necessary, and they should be performed with extreme care and only after extensive debate.
Let me ask some questions, and make some comments, about what I consider to be omissions. I shall not repeat what has already been said by the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), among others. New clause 35 requires anyone who proposes to
import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms
to carry out an assessment of their environmental implications. If the Secretary of State is to allow exemptions, what will they be? It would be worrying if they were related to military use. I have tabled written questions, as have others, but the Government clearly do not intend to tell us the purpose for which the Ministry of Defence intends to use such experimentation. They say that its purpose is defence and is therefore secret, but that is a worrying secret. We should know whether the Secretary of State is allowed to grant unspecified exemptions for military use. We shall have to probe that issue carefully.
New clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to issue prohibition notices to prevent the entry of GMOs into Britain. Two questions arise from that. First, will it apply to imports from other European Community countries, especially after 1992? Secondly, how do we control airborne releases from other countries? There is no practical way of doing that, but what is the intention and what are we legislating to do?
New clause 38 rightly contains provision for penalties or punishments, but how practical are the punishments? What penalty or punishment will be appropriate if sombody releases a strain of plant that becomes an uncontrollable weed or creates something with the reproductive capacity of a rabbit or a mink? There is inadequate correlation between penalty and action. It is far better carefully to control what happens rather than to provide penalties for the abuse of science.
New clause 39 contains the phrase,
which it is possible to remedy",
but that recognises that it would be impossible to remedy some things that are beneficial or harmless to the environment which, once changed, will be there for ever.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said in Committee, missing from the Bill, first, is an acknowledgement that some scientific activity can produce releases that are harmful and unhelpful to the environment; secondly, a duty to inform neighbouring or adjoining landowners of intended releases, as the European Parliament suggested there should be; thirdly as the hon. Members for Carmarthen and for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, an absolute insurance liability for released GMOs to ensure proper protection, which I understand was also recommended by the European Parliament and the Law Society; fourthly, much more public discussion and debate about GMOs; fifthly, a

requirement that a potential GMO release should be proven or varified as not having negative impact on the environment, which, again, I understand was recommended by the European Parliament; and, finally, a requirement for proper insurance cover.
We are not clear about the relative responsibilities of Departments. I understand that, technically, the patenting of living creatures is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. If it is now possible, as it is in the United States—we have never received an answer to this point—to create a new animal, a mouse, and to gibe it a patent number 4736866, will we have patented creatures here? What is the Government's response to this important issue? In the context of an environmental Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister gave the Government's moral response. Are we in favour of patenting life forms? Such questions underlie the debate, which is only the beginning. I hope that we take part in the debate intelligently enough to ensure that we do not make terrible mistakes.

Mr. Trippier: I welcome the comments that have been made in the debate. I have no doubt that it is only the. beginning, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, and that the debate on this specialised matter will continue for some time, especially in the upper House, not least because it includes two distinguished members of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who believes that this is such a technical and complicated matter that it could have been considered by not just a Standing Committee but a Standing Committee with special powers to interview or hear witnesses before deliberating—along the lines, perhaps, of the procedure followed on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in 1982. I wonder how far we would have gone in that direction.
I have the greatest admiration for the members of the Royal Commission, although the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) was right to point out that there were some matters—only two—on which there was a difference of opinion between the Royal Commission and Environment Ministers. I must confess that the bulk of the legislation that has been introduced either was suggested by the Royal Commission or has been amended to meet its concerns. We have amended the Bill on Report in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) because we have met some of the constructive points raised in Committee by the Opposition.
Hon. Members should not be worried about the issue of advice given to the Secretary of State. I still believe that it is better for the final decision in these matters to be made by a Secretary of State rather than by some faceless panel. Whatever one says about any Secretary of State, Secretaries of State are subject to incredible scrutiny not only in the House but outside it, as are the junior Ministers under them. I do not want that changed. I think that that meets the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about moral responsibility.
I accept that there is a moral responsibility. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will remember that we discussed that matter at length in Committee. I understand that Ministers change roles. I am sorry that the party of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey


did not exist in those days, for reasons which I understand. I urge him to look at the debate again, when pertinent points were made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I still want the responsibility to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment, whoever he may be. I am convinced that we have got that right.
I like the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen about members of the advisory committee. Everyone seems to have welcomed the idea, with perhaps one reservation about the idea of having more consumers. The members are all consumers. I do not want to start altering these provisions again, although I have no doubt that certain suggestions will be made in the upper House.
I am happy to confirm that we intend to set up registers of information, which again meets the point made in new clause 22. We have considered the proposal made in Standing Committee that provision should be made for the Secretary of State to send a copy of GMO consents, as appropriate, to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority. We believe that it is not necessary to make this a statutory requirement because we already do exactly that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe touched on a number of amendments. Amendment No. 101 seems unnecessary because the Bill provides in clause 93, for example, for obtaining further information such as data from risk assessments carried out abroad and because we will not ask for unnecessary repetition of risk assessment work done overseas. Amendments Nos. 131 and 134 would make all GMO releases subject to consent, but it surely cannot be right not to allow the flexibility of having risk assessment notification or consent, depending on circumstances. Given that part VI will cover all releases of GMOs—even innocuous GMOs—in waste from contained industrial operations, and given that we are seeking in part VI to develop an anticipatory approach that would allow us to exempt organisms which, over time, came to be seen not to threaten the environment, amendment No. 308 is unnecessary. As I said, we shall pass consent information to local authorities and the National Rivers Authority.
Article 19 of the directive that I have already mentioned on the contained use of GMOs imposes requirements on the competent authority concerning the disclosure of information. The Secretary of State is the competent authority and he will, of course, comply with those requirements. No additional powers are required in the Bill to allow him to do that. That is in contrast with other parts of the Bill, in which the competent authority is the chief inspector. Chief inspectors' powers need to be set out in statute; those of the Secretary of State do not.
It is left to the discretion of each member state to decide what arrangements will be made as regards insurance and liability. I do not think that West Germany should serve as a precedent. We consider that new clauses 38 and 39 adequately address the position and bring it into line with part I of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen asked about the decisions that will be made by the committee under Professor Beringer. He and I have both welcomed the fact that the committee is at least broadly based. The committee's decisions do not need to be unanimous, but I hope that the committee will proceed on the basis of

consensus. Ultimately, its role will be to give advice to the Secretary of State and that it will do. There is no escape from making that final decision and, as I have explained several times, the Secretary of State is answerable to this House.
I think that I have dealt with the principal points. I was interested in some of the technical points raised by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I should like time to consider them seriously as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge I have done in respect of arguments that the Opposition advanced in Committee. If I think that it is necessary, we shall of course return to them in the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

GENERAL DUTIES RELATING TO IMPORTATION, ACQUISITION, KEEPING, RELEASE OR MARKETING OF ORGANISMS

'.—(1) A person who—

(a) is proposing to import or acquire any genetically modified organisms, or
(b) is keeping any such organisms, or
(c) is proposing to release or market any such organisms,

shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be subject to the duties specified in subsection (2), (3) or (4) below, as the case may be.

(2) A person who proposes to import or acquire genetically modified organisms—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to identify, by reference to the nature of the organisms and the manner in which he intends to keep them (including any precautions to be taken against their escaping or causing damage to the environment), what risks there are of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition; and
(b) shall not import or acquire the organisms if it appears that, despite any precautions which can be taken, there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition.

(3) A person who is keeping genetically modified organisms—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any damage to the environment which may have been caused as a result of his keeping the organisms and to identify what risks there are of damage to the enviroment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them;
(b) shall cease keeping the organisms if, despite any additional precautions which can be taken, it appears, at any time, that there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them; and
(c) shall use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for keeping the organisms under his control and for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep the organisms;

and where a person is required by paragraph (b) above to cease keeping the organisms he shall dispose of them as safely and as quickly as practicable and paragraph (c) above shall continue to apply until he has done so.

(4) A person who proposes to release genetically modified organisms—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed, by reference to the nature of the organisms and the extent and manner of the release (including any precautions to be taken against their


causing damage to the environment), what risks there are of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released;
(b) shall not release the organisms if it appears that, despite the precautions which can be taken, there is a risk of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released; and
(c) subject to paragraph (b) above, shall use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released;

and this subsection applies, with the necessary modifications, to a person proposing to market organisms as it applies to a person proposing to release organisms.

(5) This section does not apply—

(a) to persons proposing to import or acquire, or to release, any genetically modified organisms, in cases or circumstances where, under section (risk assessment and notification requirements) above, they are not required to carry out a risk assessment before doing that act;
(b) to persons who are keeping any genetically modified organisms and who—

(i) were not required under section (risk assessment and notification requirements) above to carry out a risk assessment before importing or acquiring them;
(ii) have not been required under that section to carry out a risk assessment in respect of the keeping of those organisms since importing or acquiring them; or

(c) to holders of consents, in the case of acts authorised by those consents.'—[Mr. Trippierj

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 37

PROHIBITION NOTICES

'(1) The Secretary of State may serve a notice under this section (a "prohibition notice") on any person he has reason to believe—

(a) is proposing to import or acquire, release or market any genetically modified organisms; or
(b) is keeping any such organisms;

if he is of the opinion that doing any such act in relation to those organisms or continuing to keep them, as the case may be, would involve a risk of causing damage to the environment.

(2) A prohibition notice may prohibit a person from doing an act mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to any genetically modified organisms or from continuing to keep them; and the prohibition may apply in all cases or circumstances or in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the notice.

(3) A prohibition notice shall—

(a) state that the Secretary of State is, in relation to the person on whom it is served, of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) above;
(b) specify what is, or is to be, prohibited by the notice; and
(c) if the prohibition is not to be effective on being served, specify the date on whch the prohibition is to take effect;

and a notice may be served on a person notwithstanding that he may have a consent authorising any act which is, or is to be, prohibited by the notice;

(4) Where a person is prohibited by a prohibition notice from continuing to keep any genetically modified organisms, he shall dispose of them as quickly and safely as practicable or, if the notice so provides, as may be specified in the notice.

(5) The Secretary of State may at any time withdraw a prohibition notice served on any person by notice given to that person.'.—[Mr. Trippier]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

CONSENTS: LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

'(1) The Secretary of State may include in a consent such limitations and conditions as he may think fit.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the conditions included in a consent may—

(a) require the giving of notice of any fact to the Secretary of State; or
(b) prohibit or restrict the keeping, releasing or marketing of genetically modified organisms under the consent in specified cases or circumstances;

and where, under any condition, the holder of a consent is required to cease keeping any genetically modified organisms, he shall dispose of them, if no manner is specified in the conditions, as quickly and safely as practicable.

(3) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for the importation or acquisition of genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall—

(a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their importation or acquisition; and
(b) if at any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith.

(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for keeping genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall—

(a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any damage to the environment which may have been caused as a result of his keeping the organisms and of any risks there may be of such damage being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them;
(b) if at any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith; and
(c) use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for keeping the organisms under his control and for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of his continuing to keep them.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, there is implied in every consent for releasing or marketing genetically modified organisms a general condition that the holder of the consent shall—

(a) take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of any risks there may be of damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released or, as the case may be, marketed;
(b) if any time it appears that any such risks are more serious than were apparent when the consent was granted, notify the Secretary of State forthwith; and
(c) use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost for preventing any damage to the environment being caused as a result of their being released or, as the case may be, marketed.

(6) The general condition implied into a consent under subsection (3), (4) or (5) above has effect subject to any conditions imposed under subsection (1) above; and the obligations imposed by virtue of subsection (4)(c) or (5)(c) above shall not apply to any aspect of an act authorised by a consent which is regulated by such a condition.

(7) There shall be implied in every consent for keeping, releasing or marketing genetically modified organisms of any description a general condition that the holder of the consent—

(a) shall take all reasonable steps to keep himself informed of developments in the techniques which may be available in his case for preventing damage


to the environment being caused as a result of the doing of the act authorised by the consent in relation to organisms of that description; and
(b) if it appears at any time that any better techniques are available to him than is required by any condition included in the consent under subsection (1) above, shall notify the Secretary of State of that fact forthwith.

But this general condition shall have effect subject to any conditions imposed under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41

ONUS OF PROOF AS REGARDS TECHNIQUES AND EVIDENCE

'.—(1) In any proceedings for either of the following offences, that is to say—

(a) an offence under section 101(1)(d) above consisting in a failure to comply with the general condition implied by section (Consents: limitations and conditions) (4)(c) or (5)(c) above; or
(b) an offence under section 101(1)(e) above consisting in a failure to comply with section (General duties relating to importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of organisms) (3)(c) or (4)(c) above;

it shall be for the accused to prove that there was no better available technique not entailing excessive cost than was in fact used to satisfy the condition or to comply with that section.

(2) Where an entry is required by a condition in a consent to be made in any record as to the observance of any other condition and the entry has not been made, that fact shall be admissible as evidence that that other condition has not been observed.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38

POWER OF COURT TO ORDER CAUSE OF OFFENCE TO BE REMEDIED

'(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 101(1)(a),(aa),(d),(e),(ee) or (f) above in respect of any matters which appear to the court to be matters which it is in his power to remedy, the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment, order him, within such time as may be fixed by the order, to take such steps as may be specified in the order for remedying those matters.

(2) The time fixed by an order under subsection (1) above may be extended or further extended by order of the court on an application made before the end of the time as originally fixed or as extended under this subsection, as the case may be.

(3) Where a person is ordered under subsection (1) above to remedy any matters, that person shall not be liable under section 101 above in respect of those matters, in so far as they continue during the time fixed by the order or any futher time allowed under subsection (2) above.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO REMEDY HARM

'(1) Where the commission of an offence under section 101(1)(a),(aa),(d),(e),(ee) or (I) above causes any harm which it is possible to remedy, the Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (2) below—


(a) arrange for any reasonable steps to be taken towards remedying the harm; and
(b) recover the cost of taking those steps from any person convicted of that offence.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers under this section, where any of the steps are to be taken on or will affect land in the occupation of any person other than a person convicted of the offence in question, except with the permission of that person.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

PRODUCT AUDIT AGENCY

'(1) The Secretary of State shall establish, within 12 months of the coming into operation of this Act, a Product Audit Agency.

(2) The Agency's duty will be to review any product referred to it to see if the product is produced in the most environmentally friendly way, whether alternative products could be substituted which are more environmentally friendly and to publish reports on such reviews.

(3) Any government Minister or local authority may refer products to the agency.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 2—Import Controls—
'It shall be an offence to import into the United Kingdom any product produced anywhere else in the world, if that product is produced in conditions which would be in contradiction of any provision of this Act were that production to have taken place in the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Bennett: I shall not detain the House for long, but we need to get some information from the Government on the progress that they are making in relation to one or two subjects that came up in Committee. Tabling the idea of a product audit agency gives us the opportunity to probe the Government on what point they have reached on green labelling, whereas new clause 2, dealing with import controls, was tabled to enable us to ascertain whether the Government propose to consider skeleton labels to warn people. We should then have labels to tell people that a product was genuinely environmentally friendly and a system to protect people from certain products or warn them that they are produced in other countries by methods that would not be allowed in Britain because of the dangers that they would cause.

Mr. Pike: Is my hon. Friend aware that last Thursday the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment drew attention to a propellant whose label indicated that the container was environmentally friendly but failed to mention the fact that the substance that it was designed to propel was not environmentally friendly? Such cases must be a matter of concern.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that point. It is worrying that people are making claims that products containing CFCs or alternatives to them are environmentally friendly when they are not. If consumers have a choice of product, they are often willing to choose one that is environmentally friendly. Clearly there is a great deal of misleading information.
In Committee the Minister said that the Government were seriously considering green labels to make it clear which product is environmentally friendly and which is not. I hope that the Government can tell us today how far they have progressed with green labelling and will not tell us again that we must await for the Tory party conference and the White Paper, which looks increasingly more like the Tory party manifesto than something important for the country that is to be unveiled.
To give some illustrations of the problems that people face, if one goes to the supermarket looking for detergents or soap powders one finds a whole range that claim to be environmentally friendly and have "green" somewhere in their packaging and often in their title. However, as far as I can make out, it is necessary to look carefully at each one, what they claim to do and what is in them. One has to make a sophisticated judgment about which is environmentally friendly and which is not.
From the amount of space that toilet rolls made from recycled paper take up on supermarket shelves, it seems that companies manufacturing them have had considerable success in taking part of the market share. However, I understand that most toilet rolls made from recycled paper are made from high grade recycled paper. That is not particularly useful to the environment. It would have a much better environmental impact if they were made from the poorest grade of recycled paper.
I am curious about another point to which no one will give me an answer. Many people who sell kitchen furniture push the advantages of having a pulveriser in the kitchen sink. I can see the attraction of getting rid of some of the kitchen waste down the sink rather than via the dustbin. However, I am not sure whether that is environmentally friendly or not. It might simply increase the problems of the sewage authorities and reduce those of waste disposal authorities.
There are many other problems. In Committee we made great play of the problem of plastic sacks which increasingly litter the countryside. I hope that the Government will soon suggest ways in which we can eradicate the problem, perhaps by making plastic sacks returnable. Certainly we should look for an environmentally friendly solution.
The last point that I wish to raise is that of bottled water. Ten years ago one had a choice of tap water or perhaps soda water on the bar. It is amazing how the amount of bottled water sold over the past 10 years has increased. Clearly people have their own view about taste, but I should have thought that the Government could provide guidance about which bottles were environmentally friendly. Is it glass bottles, plastic bottles or plastic ones with metal tops? It is disturbing to see bottles bobbing about on beaches and on river banks.
It is time that we began to check out the environmental claims made for all sorts of products. If the Government intend to introduce green labels on products, they should tell us how soon and how they will organise it.
As the Bill sets out, it is important that we should protect the environment of people in this country and protect the health of workers in factories. However, it is not satisfactory simply to drive an industry out of this country to some Third world country or other part of the world. The product could simply be made there and reimported here. That would be completely unsatisfactory. If, rightly, we have strict regulations on products made in this country, we should also insist that products from

abroad conform to those same high standards. It would be wrong if my constituents were protected from pollution only to find that the product was made to the detriment of people in the Philippines or Nigeria.
I hope that the Government will tell us their thinking on the two issues that I have raised in this brief debate.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I shared a number of debates i n Committee. He referred a moment ago to supermarkets' trading methods in green products. As I was unable to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, a few moments ago, may I in passing give a strong welcome to Government amendment No. 314, and to the introduction of penalties for errant supermarket trolleys that disappear to railway stations? That is an example of the changes that have crept up on society without anyone being consulted. Huge supermarket lorries appearing in small towns and the increase in shoplifting—it would be out of order to discuss that now—are similar changes.
9.30 pm
The Government are to be congratulated on amendment No. 314, which grasps an important nettle and establishes a welcome principle to try to control some of the giants who so reorganise our lives.
The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is an attempt to establish on the statute book a body to enable us to keep up with changes to contemporary life. The hon. Gentleman mentioned plastic sacks; he will recall that, even before he tabled an amendment in Committee about those huge plastic fertiliser sacks that have appeared in the countryside, I had done so. I should not be able to look my wife in the eye when I go home tonight if I had not at least made the point, in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, that those sacks are environmentally unacceptable. They are a classic example of how an industry—the jute industry in Dundee in this case—can be decimated purely at the behest of the plastics industry. Even if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the new clause, he should recognise that the House, on behalf of the people, expects to be able to keep up with changes taking place before our very eyes. I hope that he will be able to say something about the Government's thinking on those evolutionary changes.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: New clause 1 would create a new public agency whose job would be to assess a wide variety of products and to try to grade them according to their environmental friendliness. I ask the House to reject the measure, not because I disagree with the need to encourage environmentally cleaner products but because we are taking this forward by other means.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned our environmental or eco-labelling scheme. On 9 January we announced proposals for developing a scheme of positive labelling which, when it is up and running, will provide reliable information to consumers and encourage environmentally cleaner products. It will also assist trade, because we hope that the environmental labels will be recognised and accepted throughout the European Community.
We want the scheme to be as voluntary and flexible as possible and we want it to work with the grain of market forces whenever possible. We also want it to assess products from cradle to grave, which means that it will take account of their environmental impact right through


from raw material state, to manufacturing, through distribution and use and right up to disposal. The scheme will also cover a wide variety of products, including, I hope, packaging; perhaps there should not be separate environmental labels for packaging, but I hope that in assessing the environmental friendliness of a product the committee administering the scheme will take into account the quantity and type of packaging.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) introduced the very different issue of what to do with plastic sacks, especially those in use on farms. He will know from the debates that we had in Committee that the plastics recycling industry is very much in its infancy, but we are doing what we can to increase the low percentage of plastic that is recovered and recycled. We are always looking for a cycle or loop. It exists in glass, in the normal doorstep delivery of milk: the same person who delivers the milk takes away the empties. That practice could be followed with plastic sacks, and the delivery of bags full of fertiliser could be extended to encompass the removal and reuse of empty sacks. I certainly undertake to consider further my hon. Friend's suggestions.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned bottled water.

Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend spoke about plastic sacks. He may not be aware that I have introduced a Bill for the recycling of plastics at the behest of the plastics industry, which is substantially based in my constituency. The industry wants to encourage the recycling of plastics throughout Britain and would look favourably on a deposit or collection scheme, especially for agricultural plastics and plastics used in the packaging industry. There are only five main types of polymer, all of which can be reused time and again. It is important for the industry and for the public to recycle as much of that plastic as possible.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I congratulate my hon. Friend. No doubt where his constituency proceeds the rest of us will follow. Certainly we want to make a concerted effort to increase the percentage of plastic that is recovered for recycling.
I was speaking about bottled water. The campaign organised last year against water in our taps was perhaps aimed at sabotaging water privatisation. It was unsuccessful in that, but it has a most unfortunate environmental side effect in that it drove some people to drinking a great deal more bottled water. It is by no means clear that the consumption of bottled water is more environmentally benign. The water has to be collected at source, bottled and transported. It then has to be sold and drunk and somebody has to take the bottles away. There is also the danger of some bottled waters containing small quantities of benzene. As some of the bottled waters are more expensive than petrol, there may be some irony there. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish makes the serious point that judgments on those matters are difficult to make. I hope that when we have the eco-labelling scheme in place, it will assist consumers to make the right choice.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When will the first of the labels be in place?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We hope that the first labels will be awarded by the end of next year. Unfortunately, we can go only at the same pace as the European Commission, which is working out its own proposals on the matter. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that if the Commission is too dilatory, we shall implement our own environmental labelling scheme anyway.
New clause 2 was also spoken to by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. It is a reminder that the battle to protect the environment is international and that international action and co-operation is essential. Other countries, especially developing ones, have great difficulty in coming up to the environmental standards that increasingly we insist upon for Britain. The difficulties faced by those countries are often a direct consequence of poverty and lack of technical expertise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that by effectively banning certain imports from those countries, his clause would make the problem of poverty much worse.
In effect, the hon. Gentleman is advocating a fairly spectacular system of import controls. Quite apart from anything else, I am sure that they would be in contravention of GATT. It would be a nightmare to run such a system because it is difficult enough to assess environmentally benign or harmful products in this country. To try to extend that and make the same judgments about every country would be impossible and it would be wrong even to try.
Although I sympathise with many of the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman's two new clauses, I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In view of the Minister's reply and the need to get a move on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

FLUE GAS DESULPHURISATION

'( )—(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of reducing pollution from electricity generating stations.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, in making any regulations establishing standards, objectives or requirements in relation to prescribed processes or harmful substances under section 3(1) below lay before parliament on behalf of Her Majesty's Government a programme for the introduction of flue gas desulphurisation in electricity generating stations.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 7—Plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan to achieve a reduction of total annual emissions of carbon dioxide, based on measurements of such emissions made in 1980 in the United Kingdom, of:

(a) 20% by 31st December 1999;
(b) 25% by 31st December 2004;
(c) 35% by 31st December 2010;
(d) 50% by 31st December 2020;


(2) The plan established in subsection (1) above may include—



(a) measures for the promotion of combined heat and power schemes;
(b) measures to promote the use of passive solar heating;
(c) provisions for progressive improvement in the design of new or improved building or heat generating products for energy efficiency;
(d) a programme to improve energy efficiency in the public sector;
(e) the introduction of least-cost planning in the electricity industry;
(f) a comprehensive programme of other energy efficiency measures, including a campaign to increase energy saving and the provision of grants to householders and others for specified energy saving measures;
(g) a programme of research and development into techniques for removing carbon dioxide from motor vehicle exhaust gases;
(h) increased provision for energy generation by sources that do not emit carbon dioxide or produce radioactive wastes.


(3) The plan established under subsection (1) above may include measures that achieve a proven increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide by natural means.
(4) The Secretary of State shall before establishing the plan under this clause consult with such persons and organisations as he deems appropriate.'

Mr. Kevin Barron: The new clause is a test of the Government's commitment to the environment. The fitting of flue gas desulphurisation has had a chequered passage in the past 12 months. Three months ago, the Secretary of State for Energy admitted that the Government have backed down on their previous commitment to reduce the emissions from power stations of gases that cause acid rain. On 4 April, he gleefully announced that an 8 GW flue gas desulphurisation capacity is likely to be fitted by National Power and PowerGen, as if it were an achievement of which he could be proud. Since June 1989, the Government have been committed to a 12 GW programme. The then Secretary of State announced:
I am able to confirm today that we have asked the privatised generators to continue to plan on the basis of installing 12,000 MW of FGD capacity during the 1990s."—[Official Report, 26 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 764.]
In August 1989, the consultation paper from the Department of the Environment said:
In order to achieve the necessary reduction in its SO, emissions, the electricity supply industry plans to retrofit 12,000 MW of generating capacity with FGD equipment. It estimates that this will cost £1·9 billion.
Events moved on. In November 1989, the Prime Minister joined in. She told a United Nations conference on the global environment:
We already have a £2 billion programme of improvement to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations.
In December, the Minister restated the Government's promise that the electricity industry would be retrofitting at least 12,000 MW of electricity generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
Something happened between December last year and now. In the new year, Energy Ministers told us that, while they were committed to meeting European targets for the reduction of sulphur emissions, it was up to the industry to decide how that would be done. Yet again, they are rolling over to fall in with the demands of the City and the two generating companies to secure the sale of the electricity industry.
The £2 billion programme about which the Prime Minister boasted to the rest of the world is to be slashed

in the interests of privatisation. Cleaning our electricity industry is too big a liability for the City to take on. Despite their claims, the Government are unlikely to meet even the low targets set by the large combustion plant directive. After consistent protestations by the Government that lower targets are needed in the United Kingdom because of the need to install FGD equipment, the European Commission allowed us to set relatively low targets for the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions, at 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003.
Our targets are far lower than those set for West Germany, the other major European coal producer. It has targets of 40, 60 and 70 per cent. over the same period. It has had a retrofitting programme for over a decade. It has worked internationally in co-operation with the Electric Power Development Company of Japan, which has been setting standards in power generation using advanced technology on pollution controls for over a decade. That is why, by 1993, sulphur emissions from West German power stations will have been cut by over 80 per cent., through the fitting of over 40,000 MW of plant with 116 desulphurisation units.
In comparison, Britain has a pathetic record. It has delayed the start of retrofitting Drax B since October 1987, which was part of the game of poker played between the Government and the Central Electricity Generating Board, which knew that it was to be privatised. Despite the announcement that it would be retrofitted, the project to deal with Fiddler's Ferry, a large coal-fired power station, has been cancelled. It is no wonder that we now expect a European Community inquiry into the latest Government U-turn from an agreement. After all, our European partners might justifiably argue that if FGD is not to be fitted, the reason for the lenient targets agreed for Britain has disappeared and that those targets should be tightened. The Government want to move on to a privatised Employment Services Agency, lower targets arid no commitment to a full FGD programme. They claim that the European targets can be met either by importing low-sulphur coal—British pits that were producing that sort of coal have been closed over the past five years—or by burning gas. These so-called solutions are not options to retrofitting FGD.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Would the proposals that the Opposition would like to see implemented increase the cost of electricity or would they, if they were in government, subsidise the extra costs by the use of central Government funds? How large would the extra bill be? I refer especially to the percentage rise in electricity prices and-or the subsidy from the taxpayer.

Mr. Barron: There would not have to be any extra cost. Over the past three years, electricity prices have been increased because of the privatisation of the industry. In 1987–88, the trading profit of the Central Electricity Generating Board was £579 million. In 1988–89, it was £864 million. In 1989–90, the third successive year in which electricity prices increased as a result of a Government directive, the Central Electricity Generating Board's trading profit was £1·1 billion. That sum would be enough to complete half of the programme of retrofitting FGD.
The importing of low-sulphur coal is not an alternative to the retrofitting of FGD. If that coal is used in all


coal-burning power stations, emissions will be cut by only 50 per cent., but the retrofitting of FGD could slash emissions by 90 per cent. The use of low-sulphur coal would not eliminate the need for FGD, and we should not let this Government or any other Administration tell us that it would.
Last year, I visited some power stations in Japan. One of the stations burnt coal with a relatively low sulphur content of about 4·46 per cent. It also had desulphurisation equipment, which had been fitted in 1976. The original technology was designed in Britain but was not used, as it should have been. Without FGD, low-sulphur coal imports could increase to 40 million tonnes early in the next century. That would worsen our balance of payments and expose the electricity industry to grave risks in terms of security of supply and of prices.
Gas burn to generate electricity is accepted to be a waste of a premium resource. To burn gas to any great extent would hasten the day when we would become a net importer of gas. It would pose a threat to prices, to security of supply and to our balance of payments. There are no easy options for the Government.

Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, with the balance of payments deficit as horrifying as it is, it would be a lunatic course for Britain to develop a dependence on ever-increasing supplies of low-sulphur coal at an ever-increasing price, and that to place additional reliance on imported gas at an ever-increasing price would be equally unwise?

Mr. Barron: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the past six months we have moved into a deficit in the energy sector of the balance of payments. That is ridiculous when the United Kingdom is so rich in fossil fuel resources. The rest of the world must be laughing at us.
There are some people at the Department of the Environment who agree with our analysis of gas burn. In a written answer on 1 March, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside stated:
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regard the fitting of flue gas desulphurisation equipment as the best practicable means for limiting emissions of sulphur dioxide from coal or oil fired power stations."—[Official Report, 1 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 291.]
In the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", the Department maintains that
to achieve the Directive targets, 12 billion watts of generating capacity (the equivalent of six large coal-fired powers stations, over 38 per cent. of coal-fired capacity) will need to be retrofitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
I wonder whether anyone told the Department of Energy about the views of the Department of the Environment, or whether the Department of Energy understands the commitment to implement the large combustion plant directive to which this country is a signatory. While Energy Ministers say that the targets achieved are a matter for the electricity generators, Environment Ministers say that the pollution inspectorate, on behalf of the Government,
is preparing detailed notes on the operation of large combustion plants which will specify the SO2 emission standards to be achieved in plants of different sizes."—[Official Report, 15 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 411.]

While Energy Ministers say that a greater use of natural gas will have a role, Environment Ministers say that it will cost more than twice as much as FGD per tonne of SO2 abated. Even civil servants cannot defend the Government's change of heart, or so it would appear from the performance of the Under-Secretary in the electricity division of the Department of Energy at a meeting of the Select Committee last week. Mr. Wilcock apparently could tell the Committee only that it was for the generating companies to decide what would be retrofitted.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: During the many years that I have served on the Select Committee, I have never known a witness to treat it with more contempt than was shown by Mr. Wilcock. However, I have some sympathy with him. The Prime Minister's speech, to which my hon. Friend referred, said that there would be a £2 billion programme. Mr. Wilcock had to come to the Select Committee and defend a 40 per cent. cut in that programme. Had he been at liberty to do so, he could have said that the 40 per cent. cut would mean a further rapid rundown of the mining industry and that the chief executives of both National Power and PowerGen had admitted that there would be further imports of 25 million tonnes of low-sulphur coal. If that is true, during the next decade the mining industry will be down to between 5,000 and 10,000 men, having had a 170,000 work force in 1984. Is not it lunacy to run down an industry providing a national source of energy and depend instead on foreign competition?

Mr. Barron: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, 10 or 15 years ago no one would have thought that Britain could sustain a £20 billion trade deficit, yet that fact is hardly even referred to by the Government.
It is for the Government to make decisions, as they will have to in the summer on the question of the inspectorate of pollution. It is no wonder that the European Commission is confused about the Government's policies. Ministers appear to be equally confused. Should their priority be the sale of the electricity industry on terms acceptable to the City or should it be the achievement of an effective and lasting cleaner environment?
The new clause was tabled to try to get answers from the Government. We want to know whether the Bill will prove to our European partners that the Government are serious about the EEC directive to which this country is now a signatory, and prove to the people of Britain that they are committed to the environment and not to the whims of the City by privatising industries such as electricity generation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to speak to new clause 7. Like the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who asked the Minister to explain the Government's view on desulphurisation, I want the Minister to explain the Government's policy on the reduction of carbon dioxide. New clause 7 makes clear the view held by many environmentalists that the Government need to be far more committed to the reduction of carbon dioxide through a phased but urgent programme, as set out in the new clause. In recent years the Government's energy policy has been a reluctant statement on desulphurisation and on carbon dioxide emissions, from which the Government then resiled. That is sad.
If the Government want to be seen as entering the 1990s and the next century as committed environmentalists, they


have an opportunity to do so through energy policy. The Government's response to new clauses 4 and 7 is the most crucial test of their sense of urgency—which will be revealed for all to see, or otherwise. I hope that the Minister has persuaded his colleagues to be far more enthusiastic than they have been in the past.

Mr. Trippier: There can be no doubt of our commitment to reducing gas emissions from power stations and other sources. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are aware that we shall cut emissions of both SO2 and NOx by implementing the EC's combustion plants directive, which requires staged reductions in both gases in existing plants. Clause 3(5) gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to issue a national plan to reduce emissions from each industrial centre sector covered by the directive. That plan will provide the framework for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in dealing with emission limit authorisations on a plant-by-plant basis to ensure that the planned reductions are achieved.
So far as those reductions are to be met by means of flue gas desulphurisation, that will be reflected in the conditions on the plant authorisation. But we have no intention of dictating to the oil refiners or to manufacturing industry how they are to achieve their share of the cuts in emissions the United Kingdom will make. Nor shall we do so, as the electricity generators amendment would seem to require. One of the aims of privatising the supply industry is precisely to get away from that kind of state planning.
For the medium term, FGD will play an important role in reducing SO2 emissions from existing power plants. The 4,000 MW retrofit at Drax is already under way, and applications for a further 4,000 MW of FGD are expected from PowerGen. But the generating market has changed markedly even since the directive was agreed in 1988, and in the longer term it would be absurd not to capitalise on the environmental and commercial advantages of alternative means of generation.
For example, power generation by combined cycle gas turbines has advantages of efficiency and reduced carbon dioxide emissions as well as a considerable potential for sulphur abatement. A clause in effect requiring the Government to compel the electricity industry to invest in FGD retrofits when environmentally better means of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions are available would serve no useful purpose, and it would cut across the freedom to decide how to implement the directive that we consistently said operators would have.
Turning to new clause 7, the Government have made it clear on many occasions that they share the hon. Member's concern about climate change, but we have also stressed the need for an effective response to have two essential elements. First, it should have a sound scientific basis, and our understanding of climate change will be significantly improved by the report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change in August. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that we are playing a more active and constructive part in the work of the IPCC leading up to that report. Secondly, our response must be through concerted international action. That is why we have urged that preparations begin for negotiating an international convention on climate change. Of course we are already taking many steps to help reduce our emissions of CO2 through actions that are justified in their own right.

We support the promotion of energy efficiency, fund research and development into renewable energy sources, launched a drive to improve energy efficiency in Government, and are pressing the EC to bring forward proposals to control CO2 emissions from cars. The full range of steps described in clause 7(2) are already in hand.
The amendment lacks a credible scientific basis. What reduction in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will these reductions achieve? What will be the effect on temperature rises? How will we avoid simply exporting these emissions elsewhere? It is an extremely complex area.
I am delighted that the chairman of working group I within the IPCC, Dr. John Houghton, who heads the Meteorological Office, has produced a report making it clear that there is a degree of global warming, that none of us can be complacent, and that we cannot carry on business as usual. I had the privilege of leading British delegations, in particular to the conference at Noordwijk where we were party to that declaration. We shall stand by it. How we deliver the reductions or achieve stabilisation will have to be outlined in the forthcoming White Paper.
The most important international conference to take place this year will be the world climate change conference in Geneva in November in which we hope to play a significant part. We hope that internationally we can move forward on that front.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Environmental Protection Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

As amended, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Barron: I am dissatisfied with what the Minister has said. Three years ago a commitment was made about this issue. The Government have ratted on that commitment, not just to the industry but to the environment. We shall therefore divide the House on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 325.

Division No. 186]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buckley, George J.


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Cox, Tom


Boateng, Paul
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cunningham, Dr John






Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meale, Alan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fearn, Ronald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pendry, Tom


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Hood, Jimmy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Clare


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Leighton, Ron
Turner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Vaz, Keith


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Walley, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Livsey, Richard
Wareing, Robert N.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony





Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert
Eggar, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael






Jackson, Robert
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Janman, Tim
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Jessel, Toby
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Key, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Kilfedder, James
Miller, Sir Hal


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Mills, Iain


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Miscampbell, Norman


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Knapman, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Moate, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Monro, Sir Hector


Knowles, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Knox, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Lang, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Latham, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Lawrence, Ivan
Moss, Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Neale, Gerrard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Nelson, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Neubert, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Nicholls, Patrick


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lord, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Norris, Steve


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


McCrindle, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Page, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Paice, James


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Patnick, Irvine


Maclean, David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Patten, Rt Hon John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Madel, David
Pawsey, James


Major, Rt Hon John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Malins, Humfrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Mans, Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Maples, John
Price, Sir David


Marland, Paul
Raffan, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy





Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Riddick, Graham
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thorne, Neil


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Ryder, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tredinnick, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shelton, Sir William
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, Sir John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stokes, Sir John



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Summerson, Hugo



Tapsell, Sir Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

DOG REGISTRATION

'(1) For the purposes of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.

(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.

(3) An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(4) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.

(5) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with paragraph (6) below.

(6) Any order made under this section shall be exercisable under statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section "Local Authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council, and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.'.—[Dame Janet Fookes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dame Janet Fookes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take new clause 57—Dog Registration No. 2—
'(1) For the purposes of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with paragraphs (6) and (7) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.
(3) In preparing any orders under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to:

(a) the efficacy of existing dog control measures,
(b) the merits of creating additional offences with respect to the causing or permitting of dogs to stray, and
(c) the levels and types of penalties for dog control offences.

(4) An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(5) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with sub-section (7) below, and may subsequently lay such amending orders as he may deem appropriate from time to time.
(7) An order made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of parliament.
(8) In this section "Local Authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.'.

Dame Janet Fookes: The new clause is in the names of Opposition as well as Conservative Members. It has cross-party support. I shall not seek to move the other clause that stands in my name; I shall concentrate on new clause 5.
I am an unrepentant advocate of dog registration, having been convinced some 15 years ago that greater restrictions and control of dogs were absolutely essential. At that time I sought to revamp the dog licence as it was then. I am nothing if not persistent. I hope that I shall carry the day, but I give due notice to the Government that if I do not I shall continue to work for something that I believe to be right and practical.
New clause 5 is an enabling clause. I do not intend to go into the details of what the precise level of the registration fee might be. There is a good reason for that. I believe that it is more important to establish the general principles, and then to allow all interested parties—on the assumption that the clause is carried—to get together with the Government to work out a practical system.
The reason for that is partly that there are perfectly good alternative ways of doing things, and partly that a full detailed scheme could come back to the House in the form of an order, so that the House could pass judgment on it. I am not asking hon. Members to swallow everything unseen; I ask them to accept the principle that each dog should be registered, together with the name and address of the owner, that that scheme should be administered by the local authorities—primarily the district councils or their counterparts—and that there should be fines for those who fail to register.
Hon. Members will be aware of the powerful campaign recently mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—

Mr. Ian Bruce: A disgraceful campaign.

Dame Janet Fookes: I strongly disagree. The RSPCA waged a low-key campaign—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would do me the courtesy of listening. The RSPCA has waged a low-key campaign for the past 15 years. It found that trying to do things quietly and reasonably in conjunction with many other bodies had no effect on successive Governments. Let me make it clear that, although the campaign has been mounted by the RSPCA, it has the wholehearted support of several other organisations, including the Joint Committee on Pets in Society, of which the RSPCA is a founder and constituent member, and it embraces several organisations, notably the Association of District Councils. It also has the full support of the National Farmers Union, which some Conservative Members may regard as a respectable campaigning body. I have not seen eye to eye with the


NFU on several issues, but on this we are at one. I have here a long list, which hon. Members will be glad to hear I shall not read out, of those who agree with the proposal.
Hon. Members may be sceptical about the efficacy of or reasons for the scheme. I welcome some of the Government's commitments to changes in the law to achieve greater control, but it is essential that one is able to identify the owner of a clog. That is why it is important that each dog is registered with its own identification number, which can be linked to a computer. That is very much easier in these days of computerised systems, and I see no reason why that should be a bar to a perfectly workable system.
A revamped dog licensing scheme operates in Northern Ireland. If, as the Department of the Environment claims, it is not much good, or words to that effect, it amazes me that it allows it to continue. The chief environmental health officer of Belfast, whom I had the pleasure of hearing recently, believes that it is useful. I shall quote from a paper that he gave at a recent conference:
My experience over the last 5 years leads me to the conclusion that the Northern Ireland Dog Control legislation is steadily bringing about a real improvement in dog control in Belfast"—
not the easiest city in which to enforce anything. He continues:
Enforcement and education hand in hand is, I believe, beginning to work".
He points out that, although not all the problems have been solved, the scheme is worth while.
In response to a written parliamentary question on 1 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the scheme "is working well". Does that mean that one arm of the Government is not speaking to the other?

Mr. Ian Bruce: The RSPCA states that 1,000 dogs are being killed every day because we have no dog registration scheme. Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 10.000 dogs were being destroyed before the registration scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland, but that the same number are being destroyed today?

Dame Janet Fookes: I should like to obtain further information on that point. The Irish equivalent of the RSPCA is convinced that improvements have resulted from the scheme. The Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland believes that there has been a marked decrease in livestock worrying, which is one of the reasons why the scheme was introduced. I shall obtain further information about the precise figures for Northern Ireland and give them to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).

Mr. Iain Mills: In England, 10,000 farm animals are worried by dogs.

Dame Janet Fookes: I am not sure what the purpose of that intervention was, unless it was in support of my contention.

Mr. Mills: I am giving my hon. Friend my full support.

Dame Janet Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend. One never knows where one's friends and opponents are.
This is why the National Farmers Union in England is so keen to have this system. It is extremely anxious about

the worrying of livestock, which creates much economic damage, quite apart from the damage that it causes to the animal concerned.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I greatly welcome the new clause. Is the hon. Lady aware that monitoring of the number of dogs going up Snowdon during the summer has shown that as many as 200 dogs a day go up one path alone? With half a dozen paths, it is estimated that 1,000 dogs a day go up. The substantial danger in terms of worrying sheep and dirt, which affects children, adds another dimension.

Dame Janet Fookes: Perhaps I may deal with one aspect that worries some people—the fee. This is one reason why I have not attempted in the new clause to set a fee.

Sir Peter Emery: Why not?

Dame Janet Fookes: If my hon. Friend will do me the honour of listening, I shall tell him why not.
It is possible to set different fee levels depending on whether one wants a one-off fee for the life of a d og; whether one wants a fee on an annual basis, as used to happen with dog licensing; whether one wishes, as I do, to have a much lower fee for those who take the trouble to get their dogs neutered or bitches spayed, which very much helps in control; or whether one has exemptions or partial exemptions for working dogs or the dogs of retirement pensioners. One can use many figures. I suggest that the provisions should be embodied in an order, which would come back to the House for it to say yea or nay. That is the best way to approach the matter.
The Association of District Councils believes that it could run a scheme involving a one-off fee of £15 to £20 for a dog. It is so keen to run this scheme that, some months ago, it sent a package of measures to the Department of the Environment. I am not sure what the Department has done with it, but it does not seem to have seen the light of day and I should be interested to know what has happened to it.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in taking interventions. I am a long-time dog owner and am broadly sympathetic to my hon. Friend's comments about the welafare of dogs. I am sure that she agrees that the Kennel Club must be as respectable as the RSPCA in wanting to promote the welfare of dogs. As I understand it, its view is that the system could not work because we cannot pick up those who do not pay their road tax or enough of those who do not pay their television licence fee. How will it be possible to pick up people for not paying their dog registration fee?

Dame Janet Fookes: There is a difference. Television sets stay quietly in the home; dogs that are a nuisance make themselves felt.
I am assuming that the Government will continue to give their blessing to the introduction of dog wardens universally. I foresee that dog wardens will have an important role in rounding up strays and, where necessary, polishing them off, to use a rather horrid expression. They would also have a duty to enforce dog legislation and to ensure that registration is dealt with. That is extremely important, as enforcement is the key. Registration and knowing who the owner of a dog is is important if the changes that the Government want, to get control over dogs, are to work.
I know that Ministers have made great play of the fact that when there have been court cases as a result of dogs biting people, the owners of the dogs concerned have been known. That is true, but it is not, I think, appreciated by those same Ministers that there are many more cases that never go to court because ownership cannot be established.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my hon. Friend accept that, just as irresponsible dog owners failed to buy the old dog licence, irresponsible dog owners would fail to register their dogs under her scheme? Would not we need an enormous army of dog cops to enforce a registration scheme?

Dame Janet Fookes: No. It would require no more than the dog wardens whom the Government have said that they want. Dogs that are a nuisance make themselves apparent, and I think it highly likely that they would therefore come to the attention of dog wardens or be reported by members of the public. The public already report dogs that are a nuisance but, most of the time, very little can be done about them. The new clause would provide a real opportunity to do something. It represents our best chance of dealing with an otherwise intractable problem, a great nuisance and, for stray dogs, great misery.

Mr. Adley: I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's analogy of the dog and the television set. It is rather similar to the analogy about houses and the poll tax, which is one of the reasons why I voted against the poll tax. On the basis of what my hon. Friend has said, I shall not vote for her proposal because the dog moves and the television set does not. Would my hon. Friend's scheme be based on dogs' or people's ability to pay?

Dame Janet Fookes: No, except, if the House so wished, it would be possible to have a lower fee for retirement pensioners or in respect of working dogs, or there might be a block fee for people who keep a number of dogs for a perfectly good reason.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—she has been extremely patient. What percentage of the cost of wardens and administration would be met by the licence or registration fee, or does she assume that that will be paid for by local authorities out of the community charge? In view of the exemptions that she has just mentioned, the charge would have to be high for the scheme to break even.

Dame Janet Fookes: It is perfectly possible to set the fee at a level that makes the scheme self supporting or to have a combination of registration fee and subsidy from community charge. We already know that the Government want local authorities to undertake certain duties that have to be paid for. At the moment, so far as I can understand it—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—the Government do not intend, except in the most general sense, to offer a penny piece towards the cost, so to that extent any money raised by a registration fee would be a bonus. My main

concern is to see that each dog and its owner are linked up and that there should be permanent identification of the dog.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the likely registration fee that she mentioned earlier would cover merely the administrative cost of registration, which is estimated at about £25 million, and that it would make no contribution to the cost of running any warden scheme in any local authority area?

Dame Janet Fookes: It has been estimated that at worst it might cost about £20 million for registration and all that is associated with it. That comes out at about £2·50 per dog.
I had not intended to speak for so long, but I hope that the House will understand that I have been generous in giving way. Those who are at the sharp end of the problem, such as dog wardens, RSPCA inspectors and local authorities, are the people who most want a dog registration scheme. They are the people who have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis. If I am asked to choose between Ministers at the Department of the Environment who believe that it is not the right idea and those who have practical day-to-day experience, I know who I would choose.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: My hon. Friend has not answered the question about the Kennel Club.

Dame Janet Fookes: Let me deal with the Kennel Club. It is a perfectly acceptable organisation, but it deals with pedigree dogs, breeds and showing. I admit that. It does not deal with the problems of strays and other matters with which other organisations have to deal.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dame Janet Fookes: No, I shall not give way again because I have already done so far too often.
I have given as much information as I feel is necessary to start the debate. There is one last important point to make. The House is being asked to judge not a detailed scheme but a general principle. It will be able to judge a precise scheme through an order at a later stage. If it is felt that that is impractical or wrong, hon. Members will have the opportunity to vote against it then.

Mr. Hardy: First, I should make it clear that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame Janet Fookes) is entitled to her views. She would not have acted with consistency if she had not maintained the campaign that she has gracefully pursued for the past 15 years. As she will be aware, on many occasions and on a variety of subjects, I have supported some of her initiatives and some of the causes espoused by the RSPCA.
However, I regret that on this occasion, after careful consideration of a rather complex subject, I cannot vote for the new clause. There are several reasons for that. Basically they come down to the identification of responsibility. The hon. Lady mentioned Belfast. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in official quarters about the position there, because, as the Minister will confirm, fewer than half the dogs in Belfast are registered even though the system has been in operation for a long time.
If we introduce a registration scheme in Britain and people have to pay £20 or £25 or more, the people who would pay would be the same people who paid the old


licence. They would be the people who look after their dogs, who are and would remain responsible and do not contribute to the problem that rightly worries the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. The House is worried about the problems that dogs present. But, unfortunately, the people who would pay would be those whose dogs do not cause the problems.
It is all very well for Conservative Members to be worried. Only three or four years ago when the Government wished to encourage farmers to get out of agricultural production they sent advisers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the farmers of England to persuade them to set up commercial puppy farms. One only hopes that the sensible proposal to be put to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—to control and regulate puppy farms—will be accepted by the Government as a matter of urgency later in the year. I think that I would carry—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If it became a condition precedent that any dog that was sold had to be sold with a registration licence, and if it became a condition precedent that an unregistered dog seized by a warden had to be registered before it could be re-obtained by the owner, would not most dogs soon be registered, and most undesirable owners he brought under control?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is more confident of that than I am. We should need an effective dog warden scheme to achieve that in the first place. Coming as he does from St. Helens, my hon. Friend is well aware that his authority, which, like mine, has been poll tax capped, has no resources to devote to such a project. My hon. Friend may think rightly that the present situation is daft, but I want as far as possible to influence the House to arrive at a sensible arrangement.
In the 1970s I proposed that the then dog licence system was ridiculous and had fallen into disrepute, because of the low charge and because of the need to prevent people from acquiring a dog or puppy unless they obtained a licence for it on acquisition, not merely when it was six months old. Unfortunately, the Government, acting with considerable irresponsibility, refused to take action and sheltered behind certain requirements that they imposed on hon. Members who sought to resolve the issue by means of private Members' legislation.
The Minister cannot deny that on a number of occasions when such legislation was presented, the Government sought to apply the condition that the determination of the licence fee and responsibility for the operation of the system should fall exclusively on local authorities. Several of us made the point at the time that the licence fee should be set nationally, because it was a matter for which the Government should take responsibility.
I am anxious about new clause 5(4), which has serious implications:
In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
Does that mean that there will be an effort to introduce the transponder—the insertion into the scruff of a dog's neck of a device that will facilitate identification? I should need convincing that the transponder was likely to be effective, that it would last for a reasonable time and that the

financial basis on which it was introduced was defensible and responsible. I have not yet heard satisfactory answers on these issues, although I was reassured at a meeting of the RSPCA that I attended that the device would not be inserted into the dog's ear. The dogs that I exhibit and judge at shows would not benefit from such an insertion into their ears. I hope for an explanation of this subject.
One aspect of the problem may be ignored. It is that the overwhelming majority of stray dogs are cross bred. Hon. Members who look at the evidence will find that to be the case. Whether my hon. Friends like it or impute social factors to it, the fact is that, as the number of cross-bred dogs diminishes, the number of pedigree dogs increases. As a result, the scale of the problem is likely to diminish. That is a reasonable theory to advance, because most dogs that are obtained after deliberation, and probably at high cost, tend to be more carefully looked after and in many cases—this is a generalisation—rather more treasured.
10.45 pm
Some of my hon. Friends do not approve of the Kennel Club, although it is not a political organisation. It is responsible for the administration of dog shows, and my hon. Friends should understand that that is a rapidly growing activity. I shall give hon. Members an illustration of that. Twenty years ago anyone with a registered pedigree dog could show it at Cruft's. Over the last two decades more and more people started to enter their clogs and the Kennel Club had to introduce qualifications. It had to increase the number of days. Cruft's used to be a one-day show but it is now a four-day show. Dogs have to qualify and the standard is very high.
I use that example to show that dog showing is a large-scale activity. There are 7,000 or more dog shows a year and at some of the larger shows, for example at the Leeds or the Driffield championship shows in Yorkshire, 17,000 dogs will be present. The people who take part in those activities look after their dogs and are not necessarily those who write to their Members of Parliament. They would be very angry—and many of them have expressed that anger to me in the past two or three months—if they had to pay for dog wardens. They would have to pay for the wardens and the registration scheme, yet they are not the people who cause the problem.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I am sure that my hon. Friends will accept that the members of the Kennel Club are not likely to cause the problem and of course, my hon. Friend's dogs are kept under control. My hon. Friend opposes the new clause. What is his alternative proposal for identifying the owners of the dogs that roam around the streets in packs in my constituency and in his, terrorising old-age pensioners to such an extent that they cannot leave their houses?

Mr. Hardy: That leads me to my final conclusion and I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend. There are already on the statute book Acts to deal with the problern. There is an Act requiring all dogs in a public place to wear a collar and an identification tag. There is also an Act, which I accept dates from the 19th century, which makes it an offence for any ferocious dog to be at large unmuzzled and not on a leash.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hardy: No, because I am trying to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). As I think my hon. Friend will admit, there are clear laws on the statute book. They have been there for a long time and they are completely ignored.
Only a small proportion of those who ought to have paid for dog licences did so and no one took any notice of them. Very little notice has been taken for a long time of the statute that says that a dog in a public place must wear a collar and be capable of identification. Many people think that bringing in a new Act which to a large extent merely replicates existing statutes will compound the problem by adding to the burden on those who are responsible and appearing to reward those who are not.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Like my hon. Friend, I own a dog, which does not get into trouble. I would not object to paying a licence fee for him. Twelve years ago, when I was chairman of ollerton parish council in Nottinghamshire, the district council was not doing anything about the stray dog problem, so the parish council employed its own dog warden, and that system worked. Had we had a registration system, it would have worked a lot better. Therefore, I support the new clause.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has thought about the matter, and that he does not object to paying a registration fee for his dog. However, many people find it difficult to make ends meet, and would find it hard to bear an additional burden, particularly if they saw the dogs of their neighbours straying, and they knew that the fee had not been paid by those neighbours.
The matter deserves serious consideration. Those who could contribute to finding a solution should be consulted properly by the Minister. However, the proposal from the RSPCA, although it has the support of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends for whose view I have regard, is inadequate and ill-considered.
There is a problem which, although sometimes overstated, causes much concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred to a successful dog warden scheme, but not all such schemes are effective. Given the pressures on local authorities today, the vast majority of them could not embark on additional financial responsibility, unless they received a great deal more support from the Secretary of State than seems likely, especially in authorities such as mine. Without proper central support and consideration, after a long period of governmental irresponsibility, the situation will remain unsatisfactory. However, the new clause is not the answer to the problem.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is clear that this debate is about real problems, but I rather fear that it is about unreal solutions to them. From the letters that we have received, we all know full well that dog mess, straying and attacks by dogs are problems about which people are genuinely concerned, and rightly so. However, the scheme set out in the new clause will do nothing to solve them. Some of the legislation already on the statute book, and some of the measures about to go on it, will help. For example, the Bill deals with dog mess because the measures on litter deal with cleanliness on the streets. We are right to rely on what the Bill will enact.
The problem of dog attacks would, in part, have been dealt with by the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes)—the Dangerous Dogs Bill.
We are told that the solution is a dog registration scheme, and that in force in Northern Ireland is usually cited. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that only half of the dog owners in Northern Ireland had taken out licences for their dogs. That would happen in the United Kingdom as a whole, and the tax would be concentrated on reponsible owners. I could not go along with that. If one talks either to local authorities or to the man in the street in Northern Ireland, one will find that they admit that there has been a reduction in the worrying of animals—that is why the National Farmers Union takes the view that it does—but I believe that they would say that there are still major problems of straying and of dog attacks in Northern Ireland, and that those problems are attributable to those who have not taken out dog licences.
This would be the wrong time to put a further burden on local authorities, and if that view is accepted the scheme would have to be self-financing. If there were to be an exemption for old-age pensioners, exemptions would have to be extended to others with low incomes, including perhaps the unemployed. When all the exemptions have been take into account, the implication is that there will be a much higher charge than there would have been for those who have to pay. It is calculated that in Northern Ireland it costs three times as much to administer the registration scheme as the revenue that it brings in. If we were to have registration, dog wardens and all the other paraphernalia for which the RSPCA argues, the charge would have to be £50. That would lead to widespread evasion and widespread resentment among responsible dog owners, and no diminution of the problems. That is why I reject the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Drake.

Sir David Steel: I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) should be congratulated on her persistence on this issue over many years and on the support that she has received. I remind the House that on a previous occasion the hon. Lady persuaded us to accept a measure—it is on the statute book—which said that the Secretary of State for the Environment "may" issue regulations. This evening she did not draw attention to the most important word in the new clause, which is "shall". Lines 1 and 2 state that
the Secretary of State shall by order".
produce regulations. That difference between the hon. Lady's Act and the new clause is essential and crucial.
We were dealing previously with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. The word "may" provided him with a classic excuse for doing nothing. In fact, he did nothing and no regulations were produced. We must hope for better from the present Secretary of State for the Environment, but it is wiser to err on the side of "shall" rather than "may" in this instance. I wish it to be clear that I am fond of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. Indeed, I even bought one of his paintings. On this sort of issue, however, he sees an army of bureaucrats round every corner in every piece of legislation. I believe that he is


wrong. I shall argue that it is not necessary to have an army of bureaucrats to administer the sort of scheme which the hon. Member for Drake has put before us.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. I am sure that he will agree with me that under the old licensing scheme there was a difference between Scotland and England and Wales. In Scotland, the licence fee was part of the revenue of local authorities, whereas in England and Wales it was part of national revenue. I remember some years ago asking one of the local authorities in my constituency why it was not more assiduous in collecting the licence fee. I received the obvious reply that at 37½ p the fee barely covered the cost of issuing postal reminders, let alone anything else. Long before the fee was formally abandoned, the authority had given up trying to collect it. Any registration scheme must incorporate a realistic fee, and the hon. Member for Drake has faced that.
I believe that there are three categories of person who would welcome the new clause. The first category comprises those who care about dogs. In this instance I must disagree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I, too, am a registered breeder with the Kennel Club. I have great respect for that organisation, but it is dealing, let me put it bluntly, with the narrow end of the dog-owning market. It is not dealing with the problems that come to us day by day.
I received a letter only this morning from a constituent complaining about the keeping in a block of flats of a group of six dogs. They are kept in a wholly unsuitable back yard, and the local authority and the police are unable to do anything about it. There are the consequent problems of fouling and so on. The Kennel Club has told us officially that it does not like the scheme that the hon. Member for Drake has proposed, but many of its members, because they care about dogs as animals, would be willing to pay the modest fee that would be required in order to see a comprehensive scheme introduced in each local authority.
Second, there are those who do not care so much about dogs but who care about the mess that uncontrolled dogs make. We all receive many letters about the nuisance that is caused by dogs. There is the insanitary nuisance, and more recently there is the widespread nuisance that is caused by more vicious dogs that are uncontrolled and untraceable that attack people, especially children.

Mr. Marlow: I basically support what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) wants to do. There is some concern about identification. We know that under existing legislation dogs should wear a collar and tag so that they can be identified. However, they cannot be identified because no group of people insists that the collar and tag are worn. The Government's proposals require local authorities to keep the streets clean, and we can insist that our local authorities bring about that desirable end. Therefore, there is bound to be a national dog warden scheme. Each local authority will have to have a dog warden to achieve what the Government are setting out to do. Given identification and a dog warden scheme, what will registration achieve?

11 pm

Sir David Steel: Over many years, and under successive Governments, this House has been guilty of imposing new obligations on local authorities without providing the revenue for them to fulfil them. This legislation is another classic example of that.
The hon. Member for Wentworth—and, as a dog owner, I find it to be true—admitted that the legislative requirement for a dog in a public place to have a collar and identification is much more observed in the breach than in the observance. It has fallen into desuetude almost as the dog licence itself has done. We need a scheme administered local authority by local authority by those who know the locality to ensure that the povision that is already on the statute book is brought up to date, put into effect and policed—both in the literal sense by the police and by any staff that may be employed by local authorities. I am not in favour of a vast army of dog wardens.
The nuisance of stray dogs is a problem with which those of us who live in rural areas are not sufficiently sympathetic because it is mainly an urban problem. However, it is a real problem, as I have witnessed in many cities and also in the urban parts of my constituency.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman deflected me just as I was about to make a point about dog attacks.
I wish to cite a case told to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). During the weekend an 11-year-old boy in his constituency was attacked by a dog and taken to Guy's hospital. The case was reported to the police, but they could do nothing. That is not a criticism of the police. There is no system for identifying the owner of a dog. If there is no collar, no ta g, no implant or no tattoo, it is impossible for the police to catch those responsible for allowing such outrages.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Sir David Steel: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have promised to be brief so that others may take part in the debate.
The third category of supporters of the new clause is the farming community. I make no apology for mentioning that as I have a sheep-rearing constituency. The problem of sheep worrying is of deep concern to the National Farmers Union, which is another reason why it is in favour of a scheme whereby the ownership of the dog can be traced and the liability of ownership can be accepted.
I wish to make a point additional to those made by the hon. Member for Drake. I hope that it will be possible to include in a registration scheme and in a registration fee an inexpensive, compulsory system of public liability insurance to protect those who are, in whatever way, the victims of badly behaved dogs. I agree that there should be an exemption for pensioners. In particular, I agree with her rather throwaway line that rather than having an annual fee, which automatically would be bureaucratic, there is a case for a once-in-a-life fee for dog ownership. That would reduce the cost of administering the scheme.

Sir Jim Spicer: Perhaps I could explore further the problem in rural areas. I was a sheep farmer. I had a black labrador cross, which I would have registered had there been a scheme. Over a period of two to three months there were many attacks on flocks of sheep in the


area, and the first I knew about my dog being involved was when somebody telephoned and said, "I think we have shot your dog. Would you come and identify it?" Registration will not change that. Such dogs have that in-built trait—they will go for it. I have great sympathy with the objectives of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), but her proposals will not help sheep-farming communities.

Sir David Steel: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. No one suggests that the wearing of a collar or tattoo will change a dog's behaviour. However, I know from my own constituency that too often dogs are rounded up whose owners cannot be traced. The dogs may even have been let out of cars, as sadly happens sometimes, by people wanting rid of them. Compulsory identification will be of great help both to the police and farmers. That is not to say that sheep worrying will cease, but already it will be possible to track down those responsible for the animal concerned.
Reference has been made to road fund and TV licence evasion, but I have not heard non-payment used as an argument for abolishing either of them. Anyone who watches TV without paying the licence fee is doing no damage, except in terms of the lack of revenue for the BBC and the greater amount that the rest of us must pay. But irresponsible dog owners cause great damage to the rest of society.
I believe that the hon. Lady's proposal has the support of public opinion in general, and of those who care about the proper and responsible ownership of dogs in particular.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: The House has great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). I have campaigned with her on animal welfare issues many times, but on this occasion I must tell my hon. Friend that she is wrong, because—and I declare an interest as the owner of three west highland terriers—dog registration will not work.
Mention has been made of the RSPCA campaign. I believe that it has misled the people of this country into believing that registration will save hundreds of thousands of dogs each year. It will not. It is regrettable that the RSPCA, which does such wonderful work in so many areas, should have wasted so much money on that campaign when it could have been better used elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake invited the House to examine the principles involved. As regards the collection of registration fees, we know already that it is extremely difficult effectively to collect road fund and TV licence payments. One million people do not pay their road tax, and 1·5 million neglect to purchase a TV licence. We are told that that does not matter because the only people affected are those who directly suffer as a consequence of the smaller revenue generated—and that that consideration will not apply to a dog registration scheme.
It will apply. In Belfast, where a large proportion of dog registration fees remain unpaid, the cost of running the scheme last year was £124,000—two thirds of which had to be met from the rates. So of course the problems of collection are directly related to the burden and expense imposed on others.
Another important principle is that exemptions must be permitted. There can be no justification for imposing the fee on pensioners with low incomes, whatever its level may

be. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake and her supporters have been very cagey about mentioning a figure. We know that suggestions have varied from £15 to £60. Whatever it may be, we could not include pensioners on low incomes. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the poll tax?"] Many pensioners on low incomes get a rebate anyway, so hon. Members should not bring up the poll tax. It is irrelevant. I shall not be drawn on to the poll tax, tempted though I might be.
Pensioners on low incomes already make great sacrifices to feed their dogs and to look after them. To impose an additional registration fee on them would be totally unreasonable. And the same is true of other groups—the disabled, blind people and other sections of society who should be excluded. What does that mean? In round figures there are some 8 million dogs in Britain. If there are to be significant exemptions one will need a Swansea for dogs. We would have to set up a huge bureaucracy to ensure that those who do not have to pay can be excluded and to send out all the bits of paper. The cost will run into tens of millions.
A dog warden, funded by a registration scheme, would provide a service for those who did not pay, paid for by those who did not require the service. That is fundamentally unfair.
I fully accept that those of us who attack my hon. Friend's proposal have a duty to acknowledge that there is a real problem and to put forward some ideas to deal with it. Nobody gets more angry than I when I see people allowing their dogs to foul the pavement or to run loose in the road. I have no doubt that I have lost a considerable number of votes in my own constituency by remonstrating with people who have allowed their dogs to foul the pavement in front of me or who have not properly controlled their dogs. I intend to continue to remonstrate strongly with people who do that.
We need stronger laws—new laws and the enforcement of existing laws—and a more effective education programme. So often when people are brought to court for offences under the existing law they are given derisory sentences—a small fine. We need deterrent fines for offenders. Imagine what a few fines of £50 or £100 would do if they were imposed on people who let their dogs mess on the pavement or do not give them a collar and an identity tag.
Another fundamental point must be the control of the supply of dogs. Every hon. Member condemns some of the disgusting and foul conditions that exist in puppy farms, where dogs are imprisoned in small cages and become breeding machines.
Every pet shop should be able to purchase dogs only from licensed breeders. Every local authority and the RSPCA should have additional and more effective powers of entry into breeding establishments. There should be higher minimum fines for fouling pavements or for allowing dogs to run loose in the road. There should be a substantial fine—I do not mean £5 or £10—and fixed penalties for owners of dogs without collars who are not wearing discs.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Member calls for higher fines for allowing dogs to run in the road or to foul pavements. How will we impose the fines when we do not know who the dog belongs to?

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that he may see cases day after day, as I do in my constituency, where dogs have fouled the pavement under the eyes of a police officer. One of the reasons that the police officer will not take any action is that after he has done all the paperwork and the case is brought to court, the person is fined £5 or £10. The police officer will not bother. if we have a proper tine, the publicity that goes with that will make an impact.
In 1884 an American senator said:
The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his dog … When all other friends desert he remains".
We need just and fair laws, worthy of man's best friend. I hope that the House will reject the new clause. I urge the Government to learn from the debate and to introduce legislation soon.

Mr. Pike: My dog, like its predecessor, was abandoned by its owner when it was only a few weeks old. I do not believe that only dogs that have been registered with the Kennel Club are intelligent, well bred or faithful. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) implied that if heavy penalties for the fouling of pavements by dogs were imposed, they would prevent fouling. If, however, a heavy penalty were imposed for failure to register, he did not accept that that would make all people register their dogs. I support new clause 5 and new clause 57, tabled by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). Dog registration would make it' easier to enforce present Department of the Environment and Home Office legislation and also the stronger powers that are to be found in the Environmental Protection Bill.
Most of the problems are created by a small number of irresponsible dog owners and most of them will try to avoid registration. That is no reason, however, for not introducing a dog registration scheme. If it is, we should have to abolish television licences and the road fund licence. We should also have to abolish almost every other form of taxation.
When the hon. Member for Drake spoke so eloquently in moving the new clause she was right to point out that it does not specify how the scheme would be operated. The Minister would have to bring forward proposals at a later stage. The new clause would compel the Secretary of State to do that.
The other place inserted an amendment into the 1988 Local Government Bill. When it returned here during the overspill period the Secretary of State recognised that it would be difficult for him to reject the amendment. Therefore, he said that he would not seek to delete the amendment but that he did not intend to implement it. That was a totally negative attitude to adopt. If he was against the amendment, he ought to have asked the House to reject it and return it to the other place.
It is right that the new clause contains the word "shall". It is also right that this should be effected by regulation, which means that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing the proposal. I am strongly of the view that it is important that we stop giving powers to the Executive, to Ministers and to Secretaries of State and that we reserve the right for the House to debate such issues.
We have all encountered the problems of dog fouling. We have heard about the attacks on people by certain

dogs. If we want to take steps to eliminate such problems, we should follow the route that is suggested by the new clause. Nobody is claiming that it will solve all the problems, but it would be a major step, because if we can establish the identity of a dog's owner, we can take action within the present legislation.
Although people from Northern Ireland say that their system is not perfect, they also say that the position there is better than previously. I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not say any more on that except that it is wrong for the Minister to try to rubbish the scheme in Northern Ireland.
The new clause is a sensible proposal. It is time that the House showed that we want the Government to act and that we want a dog registration scheme and dog wardens. We want be able to end the problems that are caused by what. I stress again is only a small minority of irresponsible owners.

Mr. Julian Amery: I have sometimes attempted to address the House on grave matters, such as nuclear disarmament or even Hong Kong, but seldom have I had the opportunity to have so full a House as we have this evening on such an important issue. It is a privilege to have the attention of so many right hon. and hon. Members on this central issue, which obviously concerns our nation more than any other.
I have been trying to address my mind to what the issues are. We must look at them within the broad sweep of our constitutional experience and consider how the vote was passed from the aristocracy to the middle class. to the working class and eventually to the ladies. Are we on the verge of raising the question, should the doggies have the vote as well? And why not? In Africa it is perfectly normal for uneducated tribesmen to put their hand or their thumb on the ballot paper, so why should not the doggies be allowed to put their paws there? Is it not time that we addressed these issues?

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What about the cats?

Mr. Amery: Well, there are 16 or 17-year-olds and other young men in my constituency who will have the vote next year who are less competent than some of our canine friends in forming a serious estimate about what should or should not be done. Are not we underestimating the gravity and importance of the problem in simply talking about registration? I do not know. Where does the registration lie?
Like all old hon. Members, I have my memories of going to the dog market in Chung-king and being told, "These are better to eat than those." But we do not want to approach the problem in that way.
Are we sure that registration is right? We are told that group registration is all wrong in South Africa. Can we be sure that we are not distinguishing between the elite and the non-elite? How do mongrels stand? Are they to be classed with the coloureds or with the blacks? The House—a fuller House than usual—should have some sense of proportion in regard to this grave issue. I find it difficult to reach a fair and reasoned conclusion, but if I had to reach one—

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel that it should be put on record that many hon. Members object to something that the right hon.


Gentleman said earlier. He said that we should give dogs the vote, because in some countries people simply had to put their thumbs on pieces of paper. The comparison caused offence to many hon. Members, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Amery.

Mr. Amery: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that that was a point of order.
In recent times, we have debated some enormously important issues. I do not suggest for a moment that this is not important, but are not we exaggerating its importance? If I had to reach a conclusion, it would be this. Hundreds of thousands of people—perhaps even more—have found, in their trouble and loneliness, that they can give love to a dog and receive love from it. I think that they we should be very careful about legislating to control exactly who may own a dog and who may not. There is something to be said for a tolerant approach to what is a very human problem.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, because the debate is dragging on. If the Government were not trying to ram through so much legislation, we might have time to deal properly with this important matter. An increasing number of powerful and dangerous dogs are now in the hands of people who—although they may have some affection for them—often do not know how to look after or control them, and more and more accidents are happening.
Listening to what some Conservative Members have said, one would not believe that we give Ministers any power to produce schemes; yet some 2,500 statutory instruments are produced every year by Ministers, on the authority of primary legislation such as is proposed in new clause 5. We are talking tonight about an affirmative resolution, however: no registration scheme or charge will be put into operation before being approved by the House. That cannot be said of a good deal of the legislation that has been approved by Government supporters in the past.
There is no question of our dealing with the details of the registration scheme tonight. If the new clause is passed, it will come to us for our approval, unlike the vast majority of statutory instruments. We must go through another stage before it is put into effect; that is a safeguard.
No hon. Member has explained how the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 will be put into effect without some form of registration. Most hon. Members will not know what the legislation provides unless one of their constituents, like one of mine, has been savagely bitten by a dog. My constituent alleges that the owner encouraged the dog to set on her at a fair. That happened in a public place and the police regarded it as very serious. She regards it as very serious because she will be scarred for life. Her legs will carry marks about which she will be uneasy and sensitive for the rest of life.
The police tried to prosecute the dog owner, who simply said, "I gave the dog back to the man who gave it to me." Under the Town Police Clauses Act, there must be continuing ownership and the person prosecuted must have owned the dog at the time. Without registration, it cannot be shown that the person who owned the dog at the time of the attack should be prosecuted.
11.30 pm
The Minister does not propose to do anything about that. That girl feels that she has been the victim of an injustice. She strongly claims that it was not an accident but a deliberate attempt by the youth to set the dog on her when she was enjoying herself at a fair.
In the scale of human values it is a minor injustice, but by and large we should try to remedy injustices. If the registration scheme helps, not thousands but hundreds of people will welcome the security of knowing that the police, who are prepared to take action, will be able to prosecute, which is not so at present.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I will not give way. I am trying to be as brief as I can because about another 20 hon. Members want to speak. It is already 11.31 pm and we want to have a vote tonight.
A headmaster of a primary school was taking home a small boy who was feeling ill. A rottweiler that was chained up broke loose, savaged him quite severely, knocked him over and broke his arm. He was off work for three or four months. The dog was destroyed, but there was no prosecution. The following day, in addition to the two rottweilers that they already had, the owners bought an American pit bull terrier. They have two rottweilers and an American pit bull terrier in their stable of dogs. No information about that was provided to the school and the neighbours were aware of the additional dog only because they saw it. No training or guidance is given to the owners of those potentially ferocious dogs on how they should be controlled, trained or looked after.
Nobody knows that those people have those three powerful dogs. A young married woman who has a baby daughter lives next door to them. How many mothers would leave their baby daughter in the garden knowing that just over the fence there were two rottweilers and an American pit bull terrier? Of course none would do so, and because of that menace the use of their garden and ordinary facilities has been curtailed. When the dogs were allowed to roam, everybody stayed indoors until the owners retrieved them and put them under some sort of control. No guidance, supervision, encouragement or instruction was given to the owners; they did virtually as they liked and created much apprehension.
A dog registration scheme would help. As it happens, a dog warden now lives nearby. The dog warden scheme in Bradford is one of the best local authority schemes in existence. Dog wardens have the job of providing education and improving ownership guidance. Britain is a dog-loving nation, and I should have thought that most hon. Members would recognise that their constituents would like better ownership and a decrease in the cruelty, starvation and beatings inflicted on dogs. Surely education and guidance will help.
This is a growing problem. The number of powerful, vicious dogs is increasing. It behoves us to ensure that education and training are provided, where possible, so that dogs are properly looked after. Without the names and addresses of dog owners, how on earth can that education be provided, except on a voluntary basis? We want to ensure that the people who do not get that voluntary education look after their dogs adequately and properly.
The dog registration scheme proposed in new clause 5 has much merit. I urge the House to support it in principle,


knowing full well that the details will be brought before the House for scrutiny. If the House is not satisfied with the details, it can reject them and say to the Minister, "You have not covered the points adequately. Bring hack another statutory instrument and we will decide whether to approve it."
We are not making the final decision tonight, but the debate is important because the problem will not go away. This is the second time that the matter has been dealt with in the past 12 months. The problem is growing because of the lurking dangers. I hope that the House will approve the principle. I look forward to seeing the details.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: In this case, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I agreed with almost all his comments. The new clause, which I am proud to support, is not anti-dog but pro-dog; it is anti-irresponsible dog owners.
The number of dogs and stray dogs increases yearly. Those of my hon. Friends who have rural constituencies will not know the scale of the problem that afflicts many of us with urban constituencies. Packs of up to 30 semi-wild dogs run around, upsetting people walking in the street, sometimes even attacking people, running out in front of traffic and causing accidents, tipping over dustbins and generally causing a menace.
I have spoken about accidents caused by dogs and we have heard about attacks by dogs. There was another instance of an attack by a dog today in Hampshire. A 66-year-old man was attacked by an American pit bull terrier, which inflicted appalling injuries. I believe that the man is now in intensive care, and I very much hope that he will be all right. For purely criminal purposes, criminal elements in society are interbreeding those dogs to produce an even larger, more ferocious and more dangerous dog.

Mr. James Couchman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Summerson: I am afraid that I shall not give way. I want to take up as little of the time of the House as possible. I intend to speak for only about two more minutes.
The great advantage of these lethal dogs to criminals is that they may let a dog out to attack and, if the police come round, it is thrown out of the back door. The dog is in the street and there is no link between it and the criminals. Dog fights and badger baiting are increasing. We must tackle the link between the dogs and their owners.
The new clause is essential. We need greater control of dogs, which the new clause will provide. We have heard about the cost of dog registration—will it be £20, £30 or £50? The average cost of keeping the average dog over 10 years is £4,000. Can it possibly be said that a once-for-all fee of £20 or £30 is excessive? I believe not and that most people would pay it. I urge the House to support the new clause.

Mr. William Ross: As the House knows, the powers in the Bill do not extend to Northern Ireland, so I have not, like so many other right hon. and hon. Members, given it the attention that it undoubtedly deserves and has received. It was not until this afternoon, therefore, when I became aware that this issue would arise, that I picked up an amendment paper. Lo and behold, I discovered that it contained just over half as many pages as the Bill itself, a great proportion of them being taken up by Government amendments and new clauses.
Whenever I see such an amendment paper, I conclude that I am dealing with a Bill which, to put it mildly, was ill thought through. If it had been thought through properly, we would not be faced with so many amendments. I have heard it alleged today that some Northern Ireland Ministers are not too happy with the dogs legislation that was passed, I think by this Conservative Administration, some years ago. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. I am somewhat surprised to see an ex-Northern Ireland Minister oppose this new clause.
If the Government are so deeply opposed to legislation such as is proposed by the new clause, perhaps we may have an explanation of why it was not long since repealed in that part of the United Kingdom which I represent.
I am also delighted that so many amendments have been tabled. That is something that we do not have with Northern Ireland legislation, which is often passed through the House late at night in a one-and-a-half hour debate on statutory instruments such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) hoped would be forthcoming. If hon. Members from the rest of the United Kingdom were subjected to that procedure, perhaps they would understand how we feel about it. Primary legislation affecting Northern Ireland is also passed through the House in an hour and a half. We deeply resent that and hope that, at last, it will be changed.
It will be necessary within the next couple of months to renew the temporary provisions that have been renewed for nearly 20 years. It is about time that we laid them decently in their grave, forgot about them and treated Northern Ireland exactly like the rest of the kingdom with regard to legislation by Bills. It is clear from the amendment paper that the Government have been on a steeply rising learning curve. If they did the same with regard to Northern Ireland legislation, we sure would not be in the mess that we are in in the Province.
When I hear people argue that Belfast is a shining example of what has happened as a result of dogs legislation, I wonder what they are thinking of. If I were looking for a city in the United Kingdom which was a shining example of law keeping, Belfast, especially west Belfast, is not the one that I would choose. We have heard about television licences not being paid. Such avoidance is rife in Belfast.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: None are paid.

Mr. Ross: A former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminds me that none are paid in west Belfast. I understand that the BBC does not send in the detector vans in Northern Ireland generally.
It may not be possible to enforce a dog licensing systern in Belfast and one or two other areas, but there are other much more serious crimes that I should like to be cleared up first. I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) to introduce a licensing and control system in the United Kingdom.
Reference has been made to injuries to children in various parts of the kingdom inflicted by savage dogs. The dog does not even have to attack a child to create a serious danger. Sadly, only last week a child attending my local school who was frightened of a dog on the footpath ran across the road and was killed. That incident caused me a great deal of sadness as it was a personal friend of my


young daughter. Dogs can cause a problem. I do not suggest that that dog was not under control. The child happened to be frightened of dogs.
11.45 pm
The hon. Member for Drake should not be dismayed by attacks on her proposals this evening. All the same things were said about the Northern Ireland legislation. Some of those who trooped cheerfully through the Lobby to put the legislation into effect in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly troop through the opposite Lobby this evening to reject the hon. Lady's new clause. Certainly, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will join her in the Lobby.
Reference has also been made to the problem of identification. We have a warden system in Northern Ireland. If a dog does not have a collar and a brass tag, it is the warden's job to pick it up. It is not a perfect system. It could be better. But before that legislation came into effect, I and every other hon. Member in Northern Ireland had a constant torrent of complaints from people who were frightened of dogs roaming around the streets, and from the farming community, which suffered endless damage. I believe that I heard the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) say that he found that his own dog had been killing sheep. Often there is no possibility of identifying the dog which does that. Farmers often carry public liability insurance. If not, they are sore fools. They should carry it. If the farmer's dog is caught killing sheep, the insurance company will pay up.
The new clause is good legislation. It should be supported by every hon. Member in the House. It will not solve the problem completely but it will be a long step in the right direction. Everyone who wants some control of dogs should support the new clause.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (M r. Ross). The House would do well to take note of his experience in Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), who has brought the matter before the House on many occasions. Conservative Members should respect the contribution that she has made to the debate and her expertise on the subject.
There is no doubt that irresponsible dog ownership causes increased anxiety to many people, including dog owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Indeed, many good owners want a dog registration scheme because they do not like the bad image that has been created by the actions of the irresponsible few.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does the hon. Lady agree that people who want a registration scheme also know that if the dog has an implant or tattoo and goes astray they can be reunited with it? It is a positive step.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many dog owners are worried about the possibility of losing their dog and support the scheme on that basis. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a positive move.
The new clause will not solve all the problems that worry many people and all the difficulties that have been raised, but it will be a useful step in the right direction that many people outside the House would welcome.
We are all aware that dogs, indeed animals generally, cause much emotion. We all know that pets, especially dogs, can be valued and loving companions of many families, young children and pensioners, particularly those who live alone. On the other hand, neglected dogs bring many problems—not only those of cruelty to the dogs themselves, but those of strays roaming the streets, and of dogs causing accidents and fouling paths and play areas, with all the health implications. Almost daily we read reports of dogs getting out of control and attacking innocent bystanders. There was such a case in my constituency last week, and over the past few weeks and months many hon. Members have had such cases reported to them in addition to those that have hit the national headlines.
If we introduce a dog registration scheme and a properly funded dog warden system, we shall create a framework that is more likely to bring about sensible dog ownership. Such a scheme could be used to minimise the problems that have worried hon. Members on both sides of the House—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Some of us have had dogs all our lives. Does not the hon. Lady understand that, in the short term, dog registration will mean hundreds of thousands of dogs being put down? It may save dogs in the future, but as good owners will register and bad ones will not, more dogs will be put down in the short term.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He obviously was not here during the part of the debate that dealt with that point. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) dealt with it to some extent. The hon. Gentleman should know how many dogs are put down every day now because of the irresponsibility that we are discussing. If he is worried about the number of dogs being killed, he should support our scheme, which would introduce more responsibility and a more comprehensive system.
During the arguments in Committee the Minister—other hon. Members have echoed his concern—said that a dog registration scheme would be expensive. I wonder whether the Government have considered the cost of not introducing such a scheme. The generally agreed figure for a scheme seems to be about £20 million, but the problems caused by the the poor care of dogs, by accidents, and by the necessity of putting down so many strays result in costs of well over £70 million a year. It seems that the Government cannot see that to establish a good dog registration scheme would be to spend money well—a good investment.
Since the House last discussed the scheme—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) should be interested to hear this—in the summer of last year, more than 250,000 stray dogs have been put down because of irresponsible owners who have not taken dog ownership—

Mr. Ian Bruce: That is a disgraceful misuse of statistics. The reports produced for the RSPCA show that in a full year 90,000 dogs are put down because they are strays; the rest of the 365,000 dogs are brought by responsible owners to be put down by the RSPCA.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong; that is not true. Most of the dogs that are put down are killed because they are not wanted. I had hoped that all hon. Members


would study the details of the scheme that we are proposing. We are suggesting enabling legislation that could tacke the detail of such problems and in that context Conservative Members could have been more responsive and constructive.
A vast number of dogs are put down each year and we have also seen an increase in the number of attacks by dogs. Such attacks have been reported to hon. Members and we have heard many complaints about dogs fouling public areas and causing health hazards. People are becoming increasingly bewildered about why Parliament and the Government cannot see the obvious need for action on these problems. The Government tell us with decreasing enthusiasm as Ministers change either that there is no real problem or, as they now say, the enforcement of collar and tag provisions will solve everything.
It is time that the Government woke up to the extent of the problem and the extent of public concern. The new clause is not prescriptive. It does not commit the Government or the House to one scheme. In view of the resources at the Government's disposal, it is time that they found the money to invest in a scheme of this kind. As has been said, we are discussing a pro-dog measure which would promote responsible dog ownership. The details of the scheme could be determined at a later stage. For example, there could be a reduced registration fee for dogs that have been spayed or neutered, thus helping to reduce the problem of strays, which is at the centre of many people's concern.
The hon. Member for Drake moved her new clause in the spirit of cross-party support and I hope that that spirit can be maintained. Although it was a Conservative Member who was bitten by a dog, I assure hon. Members that there is genuine worry in all parts of the House about such problems. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that this may be our last chance for some time to vote in principle for the establishment of a dog registration scheme. If we do not support the new clause, the problems will get worse because the Government have no alternative. We should vote in favour of the principle now and support the details at a later stage.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have listened with great interest to the debate, and especially to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) whose work in animal welfare I greatly admire. The new clause in her name calls for the setting up of a compulsory national register of dogs. That has become something of a rallying cry for some sections of the animal welfare lobby.
I remain convinced that heeding the call for a registration scheme would result in a difficult and expensive attempt that would in practice fail to deliver many of the promised benefits. Moreover, the problems that have rightly been identified in the debate are being and will continue to be tackled by a better targeted range of measures brought forward by the Government. There has been general recognition in all parts of the House that it is irresponsible owners who are at fault—the people who fail to control their dogs or to train or look after them. Here lies the difficulty. No doubt the law-abiding dog owner would co-operate in a dog registration scheme and would pay the fee. However, some of the fees proposed would be a considerable burden on elderly dog owners

who are, perhaps, living on their own on slender means and who rely on one or two dogs for companionship. The House should not dismiss that factor.
Let us allow that by and large the responsible owner would pay up. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) rightly said, the irresponsible owner creates the problem. Such owners would be the last to comply. if they complied at all, with a registration scheme. The responsible dog owner would pay while the irresponsible dog owner would pollute. That is a negation of the "polluter pays" principle that underlies everything else in the Bill.

12 am

Mr. Marlow: With respect to my hon. Friend, he has largely got it the wrong way round. The proposals effectively require there to be a dog warden scheme. Under such a scheme, when the dog of an irresponsible owner strays, it will be picked up by the warden. The warden will then be able to require that the dog is registered and the fee is paid before the irresponsible owner takes the dog back. The responsible dog owner will not fall foul of the warden. If he has not paid his registration fee, nobody will know about it, so it is the troublesome owner who will be clobbered and required to pay. The responsible dog owner might pay, but would not be found in default and required to pay in the circumstances that my hon. Friend is suggesting.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall analyse shortly my hon. Friend's rather optimistic version of the registration scheme. However, I shall deal first with the considerable enforcement difficulties touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), among others. Dogs belonging to people who have changed address, dogs which have changed ownership, dogs given as presents and dogs belonging to itinerant owners would all have to be chased up and registered.
Rather than being simply theoretical, let me point out that we have in the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland—examples of a licensing system that tries to grapple with some of the difficulties. In Committee, I promised to look further into the experience there. Officials from my Department have visited the Province and talked to those involved, including the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The licensing system there has been running since 1983. All districts in the Province now have dog wardens, and considerable efforts have been made to enforce the licence fee, which is set at £5. Despite that, it is estimated by those concerned that less than one third of dogs in the Province are licensed, and that is after seven years of the system being in operation. Moreover, the number of strays impounded by the authorities has not reduced during those years, and nor has the number of dogs destroyed. The pile of dead dogs that the RSPCA uses in its advertisements has been getting larger in Northern Ireland.

Miss Kate Hoey: When the Minister met the USPCA, did it tell him, as it has told us, that there has been a reduction in the number of stray dogs on the streets in Northern Ireland since 1983?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, that is not the situation. It is difficult to count the number of strays on the streets, but, judging by the number that are rounded up and impounded, the situation has not been getting better, as I have already said.

Mr. William Ross: The reality is that if the dogs had not been rounded up they would be roaming the streets, so the number of dogs on the streets would be much higher. One of the main reasons for bringing in the legislation in Northern Ireland was sheep worrying, which has greatly decreased.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I mentioned the number of dogs destroyed and the number of strays because certain welfare organisations claim that the introduction of a dog registration scheme would reduce the number of strays and the pile of dead dogs. That has not happened in Northern Ireland, which has had a dog licensing scheme in force for over six years. I agree that we can usefully learn from some features of the Northern Ireland dog licence enforcement scheme. Action taken to reduce the worrying of sheep is one of them, and I shall touch on that later. I want, first, to talk about cost, which has been referred to several times already.
There are some who believe that the prime purpose of a dog registration scheme is to raise money for dog control, but the cost of running the bureaucracy that is associated with such a scheme is considerable. A report prepared for the RSPCA by the London School of Economics puts the cost at over £20 million a year. That appears to exclude the capital and rental costs of the necessary premises, so the cost could be slightly higher than that estimate.

Mr. Michael Shersby: How much will it cost an elderly lady in my constituency to register her dog?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I think that it is for the proposers of the scheme to bring forward a realistic fee. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that the figures which I have seen are considerable. As I have said, it has been estimated that it would cost more than £20 million to run the scheme and enforce it, and that sum would not contribute anything to direct dog control measures, such as wardens and kennelling. According to the same LSE report, those measures would cost a further £22 million a year. If the registration scheme is seen primarily as a fund raiser, it is a most inefficient one. On the RSPCA's own figure, it raises only about half of the money necessary to support dog control services.
Expenditure on dog wardens and kennels is a proper function of local government, and the cost is small in relation to its overall expenditure. Even if the full cost were to fall on the community charge payer, the increase would be only about 40p a person per year. There are already about 200 local authorities that are running dog warden schemes, and I saw one of the best schemes that is being operated on Friday, in Darlington. The 200 local authorities are funding dog wardens out of their existing budgets. That means, in effect, that finance is greatly preferable to relying on an hypothecated tax that is enforced through a registration scheme whereby money is raised from the responsible section of the dog-owning population to pay for the problems that are caused by irresponsible owners.
I agree that identification is often necessary, and it can be achieved by enforcement of the existing provision that requires all dogs in public places to wear a collar and an identification tag. It is simple to check whether a dog is wearing a collar and tag, and if it is not it is by definition a stray. If a dog is wearing an identification tag, it is easy for any passer-by, any police officer or any local authority employee to read it. It is a great deal easier to do that than

to try to read an implanted electronic device under the skin of the dog, which requires specialist equipment. It would have to be linked with a computer to find the name and the last registered address of the supposed owner.
Other problems would not be cured by a registration scheme. We have heard of attacks by dangerous dogs, and they are serious. It has never been a problem, however, linking the dog with the owner. In any event, a bite from a dog which is registered is no less painful than a bite a from a dog which is not. The same point can be made about dog fouling. Registered dogs are as inclined to foul the pavement as those that are unregistered. Again, registration is not the key to the problem.
It is better to deal with each problem by a series of specific measures. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Drake took through the House the Dangerous Dogs Act under which the courts can order the destruction of a dog and also disqualify the owner from owning another dog. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has undertaken to take another look at the Act, and if he feels that the penalties are not sufficient he will consider increasing them. It is a specific Act to deal with a specific problem.
A range of byelaws can be enacted that can help local authorities to deal with the problem. It is not always realised that there are byelaws that can ban dogs from certain areas such as playgrounds, parks or beaches. They can require owners to clear up after their dogs and can ban fouling of pavements and verges. My right hon. and learned Friend will make further announcements about ways to increase and strengthen those byelaws to help local authorities to do their job.
I agree that more needs to be done, especially about strays—and here I make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and others. The duty to deal with stray dogs should be transferred from the police to local authorities. We will be looking for a convenient opportunity to introduce that measure as part of a Bill. We also want to improve the enforcement of existing collar and tag requirements. That will involve transferring the duty from county councils to district councils and boroughs, where appropriate.
We are discussing with the RSPCA and other interested bodies whether a fixed penalty scheme woul be an appropriate way to enforce that requirement. The experience in Northern Ireland suggests that it might help greatly. We are also considering the possibility of creating a specific offence of allowing a dog to stray. Again, that is in force in Northern Ireland. We are in touch with the RSPCA about working out the details. In fact, the joint working group with the RSPCA is due to meet later this week.

Mr. Cryer: If the Minister is doing all that, why will he not accept the additional power to introduce a scheme? The new clause is not, as he suggests, a scheme; it is a proposal to give him the opportunity to introduce a scheme within 12 months. Why does he not accept that opportunity?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The range of measures that we intend to introduce may make a national registration scheme unnecessary.
I am working with the RSPCA and other interested bodies to introduce a package of measures, and that must be the way forward. We all agree that irresponsible and thoughtless dog ownership creates a range of problems, some of which are serious. I know that from letters, from experience in my


constituency, and from listening to hon. Members' speeches. Each of the problems must and will be addressed by a range of measures that are targeted and specific. I hope that they can be carried forward with the help and co-operation of the voluntary bodies working in the area.
With that in mind, I hope that the House will reject the new clause. A national registration scheme is not the answer.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It is essential that we make one appeal this evening—that leaflets such as the one that I am holding are no longer sent out by organisations. They wind up our constituents with many lies and half truths. I hope that after the vote this evening the issue of dog registration will be put to bed once and for all.
We already have a dog registration scheme in this country: it is called a collar and tag. I am absolutely certain that that is adequate.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 275.

Division No. 187]
[12.14 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Alexander, Richard
Cousins, Jim


Allason, Rupert
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Crowther, Stan


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Margaret
Dunn, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eadie, Alexander


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fatchett, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Body, Sir Richard
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Fookes, Dame Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fraser, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fry, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Fyfe, Maria


Buck, Sir Antony
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Graham, Thomas


Cartwright, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clay, Bob
Gregory, Conal


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hannam, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)





Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Geraint
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richardson, Jo


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Irving, Sir Charles
Robinson, Geoffrey


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles
Ruddock, Joan


Kilfedder, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Speed, Keith


McAllion, John
Speller, Tony


McAvoy, Thomas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Macdonald, Calum A.
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Summerson, Hugo


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McWilliam, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marek, Dr John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Michael, Alun
Watts, John


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mills, lain
Wiggin, Jerry


Miscampbell, Norman
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Morley, Elliot
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wolfson, Mark


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wray, Jimmy


Mudd, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William







NOES


Adley, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Aitken, Jonathan
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
French, Douglas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gardiner, George


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amos, Alan
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Ashby, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David
Gorst, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baldry, Tony
Grist, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Ground, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hardy, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Bowis, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawkins, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayward, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burns, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jack, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Critchley, Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)





Maclean, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maples, John
Shersby, Michael


Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, David
Steen, Anthony


Miller, Sir Hal
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Needham, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Lightbown.


Ryder, Richard



Sackville, Hon Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (PUBLIC RECORD COPY) BILL

Ordered,
That in respect of the Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — Transport (Hexham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Alan Amos: I am pleased to initiate this debate because transport provision is particularly important in dispersed rural areas and is all the more important now because of my region's economic prosperity, which has been brought about by the Government's policies towards the north-east. All three forms of transport contribute to meeting the area's needs and I shall deal with all three tonight.
I refer first to road transport. The Tyne valley's economy is booming and the area is experiencing a significant growth in population. It is generally regarded as the most beautiful constituency in the country, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I very much hope that you will visit it as soon as you can. It has a large number of small businesses and there is a need to diversify into areas such as tourism.
At this point, I should like to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for always listening to and acting on my many requests so positively and helpfully.
Our big problem is that the growth of economic activity has created severe problems for so many towns along the Tyne valley—hence the need for bypasses. I refer first to the Prudhoe bypass. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to fund 50 per cent. of the cost of that £8·3 million project through the transport supplemenary grant and for providing £1·75 million this year to get it started. It is a major boost for the area and is one of the most significant transport projects in the constituency. It is excellent news for the people of Prudhoe and for the local economy because it will reduce traffic congestion and pollution, improve safety, increase employment and open up large investment opportunities. I hope that the county council will hurry up and start the project.
Secondly, I refer to the Callerton lane link road. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving a section 272 grant of more than £1 million to relieve congestion and environmental damage in the Ponteland and Darras Hall area.
Thirdly, the Haltwhistle bypass is an on-going and big problem. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have raised that matter with his Department persistently for three years and that my constituents have been consulted on it for about 12 years. They are now, as always and with my full support, united and determined that only the green bypass option is right and feasible as a solution to Haltwhistle's dangerous traffic congestion both now and in the long term. The situation has changed due to two factors—the changes in economic evaluation and assessment and the new traffic forecasts.
Haltwhistle needs a proper bypass, not a costly and useless inner relief road, which is now the most expensive option, and which is situated close to—in fact, right next to—a railway line, in a single carriageway, and alongside a 30 ft high sheer bank. It will involve a lot of houses, cause environmental damage and cannot be dualled. Therefore, I argue strongly that now is the time to proceed with the green route option. Apart from some officials, nobody now wants an inner relief road. From the new costings, I understand that the cost of that option has soared to £9·16 million, from £4·35 million in 1988, whereas the costs of the two bypass options—the yellow and the green routes

—are now estimated at £6·1 million and £7·31 million respectively. It therefore seems to make no sense whatever to have yet another round of public consultation, which includes the inner relief road option, especially since the objection to a bypass has always been on the ground of higher cost. We must prevent any further waste of time or public money and simply drop the prospect of the inner relief road altogether.
The green option is the only viable one left. The yellow route has also already been rejected, on a number of grounds. First, there are environmental grounds: the line of route would involve a number of sharp angles, and a long section would be on stilts—some 30 ft high over the railway line. It would obviously constitute a visual intrusion. Secondly, it would cause severe disruption to local industry by cutting across the factory sites of Crown Paints and Kilfrost. The siting of the roadway support stilts would mean a loss of amenity land and disruption of the firms' traffic operations, which are vital in view of the essential need to move goods and raw materials, and the fact that a high proportion of the traffic involves exports.
There would be disruption to mains services—gas and electricity, for instance—because of the need to reroute them. Other engineering works would also be affected. The large amount of flammable and combustible chemicals on site would cause safety problems. Safety, in fact, is the third ground for the rejection of the scheme. All the emergency services, including the police and fire services, oppose the inner relief road: the green bypass route is their preferred option. Any further public consultation must concern that option, and there should be no delay: all the facts have now been made available. Fourthly, Haydon Bridge clearly needs a bypass, and we look forward to progress on that.
The new road layout on the A1 near Stannington is still a considerable cause of concern. Many of my constituents are still writing to me complaining that it is dangerous, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep it under review.
Another pressing need is for a dual carriageway on the A69 west of Hexham. I have raised the matter with my hon. Friend a number of times. The traffic flow is now composed of some 9,000 vehicles a day, and is still growing. I know that the criteria for dualling have not yet been met, but I would argue that those criteria should include some of the following factors.
The first relates to the type of vehicles used. A high proportion of caravans use the road, particularly in the summer—which seems to begin in March and finish around November. The road is very winding, and has some steep hills; it is also subject to particularly bad weather conditions. It is difficult to overtake, and the accident rate is exceptionally high. In a special exercise, the police are now monitoring by video an area near Bardon Mill, where the number of accidents is particularly worrying. Incidentally, I have observed that most of the accidents are caused by frustrated drivers who have been unable to get past slow-moving heavy lorries. We do not need a three-lane road; we need a dual carriageway all the way to Carlisle. This is not an ordinary road; it is the strategic east-west coast route from the north of England to Scotland.
Let me make another plea—for better signposting. We need a more practical approach. My constituency depends increasingly on tourism, and its development is hindered when people do not know where to find accommodation,


or sites of interest such as Hadrian's wall and Langley castle. Signposts must, of course, be environmentally friendly, but the information is essential to drivers, and I do not believe for a moment that they will be distracted to the point of danger.
With the channel tunnel and 1992 almost upon us, we need a proper dual carriageway of motorway standard, like every other region. Let me repeat my request for a commitment to the upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard. The presence of prolonged roadworks means that often there is only a single carriageway on that vital arterial route. For example, traffic flows on the Newcastle-to-Scotch Corner section have now reached 32,000 vehicles a day, a large proportion of which are big, heavy lorries.
The driver should be given much more consideration while the roadworks are in progress. It is only sensible and right, for instance, to provide temporary sliproads so that drivers can bypass them. If we do not act, I fear that after 1992 the north-east will lose out to other regions.
Secondly, I should like to mention a recent and an on-going problem with rail transport, both of which concern the Tyne valley line from Newcastle through Hexham to Carlisle. The first concerns British Rail's recent announcement of the cancellation of the last two night trains from Newcastle to Hexham, the 10.25 pm and the 11.30 pm. The last train is now at about 9.15 pm. That happened as British Rail was extolling the virtues of its new, more frequent evening service from London to Newcastle. It is extraordinary that it is making it more difficult, if not impossible, to travel west of Newcastle to Hexham by cutting the two night trains.
There is considerable scepticism about what analysis British Rail made of the effect of the withdrawal of those services. Many constituents tell me that often tickets are not checked on the train and that fares are not collected. I am assured—and I have the statistics to show this-that the service is well used on Fridays and Saturdays.
Those cancellations will have a disproportionate effect on the social and economic life of Tynedale. People now cannot have an evening out in Newcastle or at the Metro centre and travel by train. The Metro centre station was built by private contractors and in 1989 was used by 400,000 passengers. I fear that there will be an increase in drink-driving as people have no option but to drive to Newcastle.
There is also a problem for business men. If the last train leaves at about 9.15 pm., business men will have to leave London late in the afternoon, which is not good enough for men who must do a full day's work. Again, they will be driven from the railways and will fly or attempt to drive.
Given the considerable doubt that has been expressed by most people, including Tynedale district council, which, in view of the accuracy of British Rail's figures, has undertaken its own survey of the number of passengers using the late-night service; given the indecent haste with which the decision was taken; and given the lack of public consultation, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ask British Rail to review its decision. I cannot believe that it is impossible to run at least one late-night train on Fridays

and Saturdays. After a two-hour meeting at British Rail's headquarters last Friday, I very much regret its refusal to consider reinstating all or part of the service.
I am sad because that undermines the good news on the Tyne valley line, for example the new through service from Newcastle to Hexham, to Glasgow and Stranraer. Unfortunately, British Rail has united everyone in opposition to it and has lost a considerable amount of goodwill and trust.
The other aspect of the Tyne valley line is the saga that has been going on for several years of appalling reliability because of the Pacer train problem. I understand that there is a problem with spare parts, maintenance and the late delivery of new trains, but the problem has been going on for three years. I have been promised several times that there will be improvements to the service, but those promises have not been kept and the service has worsened. On 7 December 1989, British Rail's chairman wrote to me saying:
Happily, no service will be withdrawn from the Tyne Valley line and my local Provincial Managers will be working hard to ensure that the advertised service is maintained.
Since then, three more trains have been withdrawn, which is due to take effect next month, including the 7.46 am Hexham to Newcastle train, which is known as the "ghost train" because it has never turned up. In that sense, cancelling it makes no difference.
There is enormous potential for expansion on the line because of growth along the Tyne valley and the development of tourism. I have seen British Rail's excellent promotional video. Hexham came fourth in the national best kept station awards last year, another encouraging development, but the unreliability of the service is driving people from rail travel, with the result that revenue is falling. The potential of the line is being frittered away. The Government give, through the public service obligation grant, some £400 million a year, and my constituents are entitled to some of that.
I do not believe that throughout the national rail network there are no sprinter trains that can be redeployed from other regions to the Tyne valley line. I have good reason to believe that spare trains—the sprinter trains are more reliable rolling stock—are available for redeployment. That could resolve all the problems and lead to the reinstatement of all the trains. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take up this matter with British Rail as a matter of urgency. With the opening of the national garden festival at Gateshead, it would be disastrous public relations for BR if it could not run a regular or reliable service for that event.
It would be churlish of me not to welcome the electrification of the east coast main line from London to Newcastle, which should be completed next year. It should reduce the journey time from London to Newcastle to only two hours 55 minutes. Notwithstanding signal failures and operational difficulties, I look forward to using that fast service.
The channel tunnel is of particular importance to the regions. London is near Europe and has little to lose if the channel tunnel is not completed on time. The regions would lose out. Never before, for example, have Hexham and Hamburg been so close together and so accessible. There is a golden exciting opportunity not to be missed, but it is essential to introduce through freight and passenger services to the continent. I am promised that three through trains a day will be operational in each


direction. The new terminal for those fast services must be at King's Cross. That has the full support of everyone in the north-east. I hope that we shall proceed with it as soon as possible.
Thirdly, I am proud to have what I like to think is the best part of Newcastle international airport in my constituency. The airport plays a vital role in the economic regeneration of the region and is especially important in bringing business men to see for themselves the investment opportunities that are available because of domestic and international connections. The airport reflects the state of the local economy, both of which are booming and buoyant. The number of passengers going through the airport is up; new airlines and routes have been introduced; and the financial situation is healthy. Indeed, 1989 was a record year in terms of the number of passengers and dividends to shareholders. There are now more than 1·6 million passengers compared with only 1 million in 1980—a substantial increase. The number of domestic passengers is up by a massive 15 per cent. and international passengers by 9 per cent. New routes and operators, both domestic and international, are being introduced. Apart from London, there are connections to Manchester, Aberdeen, Belfast, Birmingham, Brussels and Frankfurt, and the list goes on. Air France and Sabena now use the airport.
The airport is preparing well for 1992. Domestic and international scheduled services have increased dramatically by 17 per cent. Equally encouraging is the increase of more than 4 per cent in holiday charters and inclusive tours. That goes against the trend at other airports but reflects the high level of disposable income in the north-east. Newcastle international airport is well prepared to cope with the tendency for longer-haul destinations—for example, transatlantic and Caribbean as well as its traditional Mediterranean routes.
The airport's new and better service links—in terms of road access and the link to the Tyne and Wear Metro, which is under construction—mean that the airport has taken off. It has a continuous programme of improving terminal facilities to cope with an annual throughput of 2 million people and is upgrading airfield facilities. It is taking every opportunity to cope with air freight and cargo. However, the consumer's interests are always enhanced by more competition. I therefore simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that more competition on domestic routes—the Newcastle to London route—would lead to more choice, lower fares and a higher quality service. I know that British Midland would be interested, but cannot get slots at Heathrow. We need competition on this busy and growing route. British Airways is in a position of near monopoly, which is not in the customer's best interests.
It is therefore vital that we get a significant and radical improvement in air traffic control. Without it, the Government's policy—which is correct—of air liberalisation and deregulation is not possible. The new east coast corridor on the Newcastle to Heathrow route, which the Government approved recently and for which I thank them, has resulted in some improvement. It is still not enough, however, to cope with expansion at its present rate.
I commend those arguments to my hon. Friend the Minister.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on the way in which he has spoken about his constituency. He did so with his usual clarity and courtesy, and I know that he takes a great interest in transport matters generally and those in his constituency in particular. I am sure that his constituents already know of the tremendous amount of work that he does on their behalf. He knows that I have visited the area many times and intend to do so again. As he rightly said, it is one of the most beautiful parts of England and it is an especial pleasure to visit it.
My hon. Friend will also know that I received a large delegation of Northumberland councillors and officers last October, when we discussed several of the items that my hon. Friend has raised today. Good communications are essential to the northern region, and for that reason the Government have given special priority in recent years to the improvement of links between the region and the rest of the country, and communications within the region. Much has already been achieved and I should like in the few minutes that remain to me to deal with the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised rather than with the generality of the region.
My hon. Friend referred to the completion of the Horsley-Corbridge section of the A69, which is now dual carriageway from Newcastle upon Tyne to Hexham. West of Hexham, a major improvement is planned at Haltwhistle, and widening schemes and climbing lanes elsewhere on the A69 will allow safer overtaking.
My hon. Friend referred to the Prudhoe bypass. I must record that one of the chief reasons why the bypass has been accepted for a September 1990 start and grant aid from my Department was the persuasiveness and the lobbying of my hon. Friend. Many road programmes are pushed, and many are accepted, but my hon. Friend's persuasiveness was a significant contribution, and I hope that his constituents are fully aware of that. The Department will support the scheme until it is completed. The county is being given full capital cover and, as my hon. Friend said, it is now up to it to make progress. I hope that it will hear what he has said, as he has already achieved so much for his constituents. Determination of priorities for other local road schemes is important for Northumberland county council, but this is a matter it should push hard.
The relief road scheme involving the A69 at Haltwhistle was presented at a public exhibition in May 1988 as the only viable solution to the problem there. Since then, new traffic forecasts and a revised economic evaluation have indicated that two bypass options are now viable. My Department is preparing for a public consultation later this year on all the viable options. It is important to have views on all the options so that they can be taken into account by my Department when making an assessment before deciding how to proceed and making an announcement later this year. Any bypass to Haltwhistle would cross National Trust land.
Best value for money in economic terms is obtained by providing the relief road alongside the railway, but this option would be the most costly to build. As my Department has been engaged on this scheme for a considerable time, there will be no need for the preliminary work and preparation that normally follows the announcement of a preferred route. The overall delay to


the progress of the scheme will, as a consequence, be minimal. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about the option that he would prefer. That will be taken heavily into account when the matter comes before the inspector.
Various options for a bypass at Haydon Bridge have been considered at some length. The national improvement scheme to provide a bypass was removed from the active list of schemes in 1982 following confirmation that no economically viable solution to the traffic and environmental problems of the town could be found, but the matter is being kept firmly under review.
As for the A69 west of Hexham, with completion of the Newcastle western bypass later this year, 60 per cent. of the A69 in the northern region will be of dual two-lane standard. The remaining 40 per cent.—some 20 miles running from the west of Hexham to the border with Cumbria—carries comparatively light traffic flows. The overall personal injury accident rate is about the average for similar roads in England. I am afraid that there is no case for overall dualling of the A69 west of Hexham, but my hon. Friend's persuasive powers and the manner in which he has raised the issue tonight will endeavour to ensure that, at least in my mind, the situation is kept under review. However, in the meantime, the Department is continuing to implement a programme of improvements, large and small, of which the proposed bypass at Haltwhistle is one.
The current regional programme of small improvements includes a scheme to improve a poorly aligned section from Bush Bends to Haydon Bridge, provision of marginal strips over a length of one and a half miles at Greenshaw Plain and further marginal strips over about half a mile from Whitechapel to Bardon Mill. Further small improvements are in the course of preparation.
My hon. Friend also referred to the dualling of the A1 north of Morpeth. With the completion of the Newcastle western bypass later this year there will be a dual two-lane carriageway link from the A1(M) Durham motorway near Washington to the north of Morpeth. The remaining length of A1 northwards to the Scottish border is mainly of single carriageway standard and carries moderate to light flows of traffic. The overall personal injury accident rate at 0·23 accidents per million vehicle kilometres is identical to the average rate for similar roads in England. I am afraid that there is no case in the foreseeable future for an overall dualling of the A1 north of Morpeth. But, again, the campaign led by my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends in the northern region cannot be ignored. No doubt they will continue their campaign, and I shall continue to listen.
It has been found possible to identify short lengths of local dualling which are useful in relieving congestion and driver frustration due to the difficulties on single carriageway roads of cars and other light vehicles attempting to overtake slower moving heavy goods vehicles. One such length of local dualling was completed recently just south of Alnwick.
A further two lengths have been identified at Brownside and Marshall Meadows where national improvement schemes are proposed. These latter two schemes should be complete and open to the traffic by 1993 providing a total of nine miles of dual two-lane carriageway over the 50 miles or so between Morpeth and the Scottish border. The remaining single carriageway sections will continue to be monitored to identify suitable sites for further local dualling. The A1 trunk road will also be monitored to identify other worthwhile improvements. In the Department's current programme of small improvements, it is intended to provide marginal strips at Low Lynn near Haggerston and at the Cat inn near Scremerston.
My hon. Friend also raised two points about railways and airlines. He will understand that I do not deal on a day-to-day basis with those matters. I have some sympathy with the points that he made about railways. I shall endeavour to ensure that the Department expresses his concerns to British Rail. He will understand that the points that he raised are matters of judgment for British Rail. It is BR which must carry the can for its decisions.
On airlines, my hon. Friend referred to slot allocations and the activities of British Airways. I have travelled the route to which he referred. I know that it is a good route. It is a delightful airport at which to land. Again, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's anxieties are passed on to the relevant authorities.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to a part of the country that is now burgeoning in economic terms. However one looks at it, the transport infrastructure is successful and effective but also capable of improvement.
In conclusion, I must say what I said at the beginning of my remarks. It is largely as a result of my hon. Friend's persuasiveness and that of his hon. Friends that the case for the north of England is pressed continuously and strongly, whether for roads, rail, air travel facilities or any other type of transport. I hope that his constituents realise what a good job he and my hon. Friends are doing. The fact remains that there is good news in the northern region. The transport infrastructure goes a long way to creating that good news. My Department—particularly the roads section—intends that that will continue to be the case.

Question put and agree to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.